I don’t think that it’s unkind or over the top to say that if Saeed does ultimately survive this ordeal and becomes a free man that none of the churchians who not only idly stood by while he rotted and suffered, but who actively enabled and joined in on his wife’s trashing of him will be fit to hold his Bible.

To paraphrase an old maxim: a whole lotta people who think they’ve got a reserved seat in heaven are gonna be real shocked and disappointed.

There used to be a bumper sticker that said “Rugby Players Eat Their Dead”, and it was meant to show how tough they were in comparison to football players. Then harsh experience showed me that a tougher group of people should put this on their bumpers: “Christians Eat Their Wounded”. I have seen brothers and sisters in Christ turn their backs on their weak and wounded fellow Christians, but I have never seen such a callous heart in my life. I thought the woman in Tennessee who blew her pastor/husband away with a shotgun was the worst. Naghmeh take the title.

This whole thing has me wondering how many genuine Bible believing, Christ following, Christians are left in the free first world. How can so many people so obviously deviate from Christian teaching while at the same time shout to the world they are Christians? I’m truly baffled at the cognitive dissonance.

What’s that the bible says? “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will scatter.” Her shepherd (husband) was struck. It’s amazing she’s lasted as long as she did.

I wasn’t talking about her, but rather all the people leading her in so many wrong directions and encouraging her to sin, all in the name of Christ. It is sickening to read about.

I am not saying any wrong doing on her part is not her fault because of this. That would be absurd. I am saying she should have stuck with her husband and never listened to those wolves in sheep’s clothing to begin with.

Now she’s open game for every roaming lion that is seeking someone to devour. What she needs is the protection of her husband, and He needs the support of his wife AND the prayers of all his brothers. I am praying for pastor Saeed, please join me.

This whole thing has me wondering how many genuine Bible believing, Christ following, Christians are left in the free first world. How can so many people so obviously deviate from Christian teaching while at the same time shout to the world they are Christians? I’m truly baffled at the cognitive dissonance.

Well, when you stop to consider that the typical churchian social club’s “Bible Study” consists not of, you know, studying the Bible, but of group reading the latest bestseller from the churchian Oprah Book of the Month Club, then the widespread ignorance of Scripture, even … ESPECIALLY… among those who are supposed to be teachers of it– comes as no surprise at all.

@JDG, I wasn’t actually replying to any comment you made, just an observation. I’m presently watching a situation where a pastor’s wife is doing something similar after the pastor ended up in through no fault of his own in a bad place. To channel my inner Rollo, expecting women to stick by their man when he’s down in the present age is just to invite cruel disappointment. Not every woman pulls a Naghmah of course, but we should expect a significant number to. It’s reality. And like many things, I believe the bible anticipated it.

Neguy@JDG, I wasn’t actually replying to any comment you made, just an observation.

Sorry, my bad.

… expecting women to stick by their man when he’s down in the present age is just to invite cruel disappointment.

Fact! Even though my wife was not born or raised here (missing out on the feminist indoctrination the locals are subjected to), I keep constant vigilance over those things that would influence her for the worse. I also continuously wash her with the word while praying often. This culture is a contagious sickness, and we must keep vigilant.

This whole thing has me wondering how many genuine Bible believing, Christ following, Christians are left in the free first world. How can so many people so obviously deviate from Christian teaching while at the same time shout to the world they are Christians? I’m truly baffled at the cognitive dissonance.

Fact is, a whole lot of those who profess to be Christians have not even begun to understand what the term means. Just because someone was born into a Christian home, and they attended church from an early age, does not make them Christians. Being a Christian is a commitment to turn from all sins, and to be increasingly conformed to the image of the Son of God. Those who claim to be Christians, but are not following the clear teachings of Scripture, are self-deceived.

But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves. For if any be a hearer of the word, and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a glass: For he beholdeth himself, and goeth his way, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was. James 1:22-24

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Luke 6:46

nick012000 @ 9:59 pm:
“No, I don’t think so. As long as they believe in Jesus, their transgressions will be forgiven.”

Demons believe in Jesus, too. James 2:19.

…

JDG @ 8:33 pm:
“This whole thing has me wondering how many genuine Bible believing, Christ following, Christians are left in the free first world.”

More than you might think, but by not-a-coincidence zero of us have any status with which to attract notice. Current events feel so contrived anymore, I wonder if Christ rotated us good men out of authority in order to trigger the End Times or something. Once I wanted to make the world a better place, now I just want to keep my head above water until the ride stops.

“How can so many people so obviously deviate from Christian teaching while at the same time shout to the world they are Christians?”

Wives are to husbands as the Church is to Christ. This analogy works both ways. Nagmeh professing love for her husband as she abandons him is a microcosm of Churchians professing love for Christ as they abandon his teachings. They cannot accuse her of disloyalty without accusing themselves.

The same belief drives both rebellious Christians and rebellious wives.

Fact! Even though my wife was not born or raised here (missing out on the feminist indoctrination the locals are subjected to), I keep constant vigilance over those things that would influence her for the worse. I also continuously wash her with the word while praying often. This culture is a contagious sickness, and we must keep vigilant.

That was a great example of being protective of your woman. Not all Christian men do that. They buy into the equality nonsense, and allow their wives to “be their own person”, eating up all the societal doctrines and church heresy. No wonder, to their horror, their wives eventually grow wings and take on the spirit of the age.
It is my belief that the single most important quality a potential wife could possess is being teachable. When you have an averagely intelligent woman who is teachable, you can really help her to grow, and help her become an excellent wife. But if your woman is “a strong, independent woman who don’t need no one to tell her what to do”, you are out of luck.

Naghmeh is a piece of work and a grand case of women touched by and stained by American society, even foreign-born women. Makes a great case for eschewing American women altogether if you can’t land them fresh out of High School, or perhaps a pretty little country girl that’s been raised with decent family and upbringing. Man, once American women have been “coached” by feminism against men, they will put a kinife in your back. Add in when they come out of four or five, maybe six years of college, they’re just a mess. I run around with and into these gals in the course of my work. For starters they will NOT put their damned phones down. The touch of American society ruins women. Sooner or later, except the for the rare woman, a VERY rare, truly Christian woman, there will be a blade in your back.

And what is different in Christian women today, that are touched by the feminist stain? Naghmeh is bending and breaking every tenet of Christianity, she invented excuses and incidents she never mentioned before and certainly is being coached here. He rots, she deserts and (I believe) lies and slanders and she’s the angel and even if the poor bastard gets out, he’s now ruined. The treachery, the hateful betrayal by this woman against her man is staggering to me. And her “Faith”, her church supports her. The term “Christian” women is getting to be laughable, they perverted everything it means to be Christian. I’ve about given up the notion of finding decent Christian women, I did many years ago, but you watch what goes on in divorce, in hiring, in the courts, everywhere, and in the final bastion, the Church, now they’ve released women from any notion of nuptial responsibility to their vows. Ultimate betrayal, this Naghmeh business and given the support of the Church for this betrayal, this treachery, this gives Christian women newfound permission to betray their husbands. All she now has to do is put a little lying lipstick on the betrayal and the Christian woman is absolved because really, at least her betrayals, her affairs, her divorce-rape, her lies, “they aren’t as bad as Naghmeh’s betrayal, SHE came out ok, so why not me?” This is the lesson Christian women have now been taught. The final bastion was the church, Christianity.

It. Is. All. Over. I might as well become a gad-danged Muslim for what Christian women have become.

Her abuse claim as I suspected was a cleaning for virtue. a whore is instantly cleansed with a rape charge and abuse cleanses any woman from any judgment. The fasting thing for her is a churchian thing because her shcick is to be seen as a virtuous .Christian woman. The emasculated losers running the church eat that shit up and spread it around for all to enjoy.

I agree with those who have speculated here that there is another man in the picture. Her sudden pivot from being supportive of her jailed pastor husband to being “abused” by him simply makes no sense otherwise. I suspect that she is spinning a fictional web, telling herself over and over again that it’s true until she actually believes that it is, all in preparation to justify a step she is about to take. This is just a suspicion, one that I hope proves wrong.

“Moreover when ye fast, be not, as the hypocrites, of a sad countenance: for they disfigure their faces, that they may appear unto men to fast. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou fastest, anoint thine head, and wash thy face; That thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy Father which is in secret: and thy Father, which seeth in secret, shall reward thee openly” Matthew 6:16

Attention-whoring is the dominant feminine expression of (Protestant) Christianity in America. Every time I try to discern the reason why this is so I come to the conclusion that it is unavoidable; that not only do wives do well to learn in silence and submission, but that every vocal attempt at expression of Christian faith which is not directed at their children, or from older woman to younger, is nothing more than vanity.

Check out the comment left by Guest in the articles’ comment section:“I’m afraid I’ve seen too much of this happen in the western Iranian church. It’s a case of feminism. Our fellowship has been involved in helping Iranian refugees, and it’s been an eye opening event. They’ve been very upset at what some of the wives of imprisoned brothers are doing once they get here. Some divorce and lead a very worldly lifestyle while their husbands languish in prison. Some of them remarry. They are told to claim abuse (and abuse is very loosely defined) and then they get a free pass. Again, I want to emphasize that this isn’t the case with every single Iranian Christian who comes to the west. Many of them are wonderful brothers and sisters in Christ.”

While I’m on a roll let me add that vanity’s sister is envy. Those two go everywhere together. A lot of commenter have speculated that there is another man in Naghmeh’s picture. Obviously I don’t know what is going on, but it seems more likely to me that the explanation is simpler.

Suppose a vain and envious wife of a minor celebrity pastor. By proxy, she would acquire vainglory from his status. But what if she could kill him and take all the gold/vainglory in one lump sum? That would explain why a vain and envious pastor’s wife would claim he was cheating by porn, and then act as if he were dead and she were alone.

Someone above suggested that ditching him would be like killing the goose that laid the golden egg (because his cause was her fame). Now the suggestion is on the table that the ditching is the goose (so she can keep the fame for herself). Or is the goose ditching the golden gander to get laid herself? We wait with bated breath.

Circumstantial proof of just how toxic modern western –particularly modern American— culture is to everything that comes into contact with it (even … no, especially Christianity) and how quickly it destroys its host.

Indeed. Give us an address oh learned one and I will happily pen a missive to her church.

This story is beyond incredible. I have calmed down somewhat and my Blood pressure only goes to the mid 200’s when I read it which is quite an improvement. I am very curious to hear how the preacher and the media handle the firestorm when he returns. My guess is he will take the total bluepill/Mangina path aka “The High Road” and refuse to talk about them, leaving a shadow, a literal sword of Damocles following him around for his entire life. I hope not.

I hope he calls out the lying whore at a press conference when he announces his 91 city book tour complete with pics of her gobbling man essence when she was supposed be fasting. Well, actually I hope she repents and begs his forgiveness but if not then those pics would be great.

Hi all,
I’ve been reading in this corner of the web for nearly two years now and it has been, to say the least, transformative.
Tangentially related to the original post, but quite relevant to the blog overall–If you were a Christian man soon to be married (having attempted to ‘vet’ very VERY carefully along the way), what set(s) of vows would you consider using? My fiancée and I are [i]not[/i] planning on attempting to write our own, and would like something that is biblically sound (e.g. not “blue pill”!) and representing the actual PROMISES of marriage.
I’m somewhat involved in Christian ministries, but would have to admit a rather lacking knowledge of historical sets of Christian wedding vows.

For any of you who are brothers in Christ, prayers are appreciated for someone who will be seeking to start and lead a godly family in a climate that is dead-set against both, and that I can make some positive biblically-based difference through my ministry involvements as well.
Thanks for any wisdom you may be able to share.

I don’t know what is going through this woman’s head honestly. I’m not close enough to it, I haven’t followed it. But for crying out loud, it isn’t relevant. This man is in prison for his faith, not spousal abuse or anything ridiculous like that. He has been brave and refused to recant the truth. He will be in my prayers.

Who gives a shit about some guy protesting Islam. Why are you protesting the only faith that wants to restore marriage through Sharia? Christians don’t care about marriage. They want to bitch about gay marriage forty years after we legalized adultery. Who gives a shit about ‘Christianity’? A group that protects adulterers, so long as they are womenz who can pretend like they were ‘secretly abused’?

Me? No I don’t care. Christianity is dead. They worship the vagina, not God. At least Muslims worship God. They want to *gasp* stone adulterers in the streets. Christians want to protect them with the police. And they do, as I witnessed and will bear witness to.

So who really gives a fuck about some pro adultery asshole getting beaten in prison by people who actually care about the scriptures? Who care about adultery?

Why do you all support adultery?

But hey we better ignore all that shit and support some guy whose being beaten in some Islam country cause they don’t want to encourage sluttery and adultery. I mean they are the bad guys, right? Not all of you. You are the ‘good’ people, right? Not the Muslims who want to bring back marriage.

I better go get upset about some guy trying to poz Muslims and bring them some Christian virtues. Like supporting adultery cause if women can’t fuck some other dude when they’re married they might possibly be being abused!

Lol who gives a shit about this garbage. Yeah let’s all get upset cause some whore doesn’t care that her husband is trying to get the Muslims to give up God and support consumerism and rampant sex culture. Oh my fucking God Dalrock what the fuck is wrong with you all? Who fucking cares about this shit? You really think that anyone cares about your fake religion?

How about all you massive hypocritical vagina worshippers support actual marriage so I don’t have to send more Muslims money? How about you get your ridiculous churches to try to bring back actual marriage to actual Christian countries so I don’t have to support Islam?

Cause nobody else cares about the Bible. You fucking hypocritical assholes don’t care about the Bible. You just pretend like everyone else in my old church. You worship the vagina. Lol who fucking cares what some stupid bitch says on twitter. I mean really? Really? You’re fucking ridiculous. Who gives a shit what some whore says on twitter. Who gives a shit?

Hey the Muslims want to institute Sharia law. They want to stone adulterers in the streets. Not protect them with government violence. The Muslims actually care about the Bible! But I better care about the dumb shit you have been writing about lately, right? Right?

Lol who gives a shit about any of this? I admire the Muslims. I’ve been sending them money so they can beat your precious no name whatever guy. Why? Cause they actually support the Bible and support marriage.

All of you? Well I’m thinking about converting cause Christianity is dead. You’re all fucking ridiculous. Your heads are shoved so far up your asses that you can’t see a God damn thing.

@Joshua’s Battle
That’s an interesting question since the topic came up at church recently. My pastor said it’s been in his experience that couple who write their own vows tend not to take those vows seriously. He compared it to an attitude that is self-serving as opposed reading vows written by their pastor based on sound doctrine. He’s a pretty solid, straight forward 90% Red Pill guy without really knowing what “The Red Pill” means.

I could be wrong, but Orthodox Churches have a different take on the wedding ceremony in that there are no wedding vows. Maybe one of the Orthodox guys on the board could enlighten us on the details.

Hi all,
I’ve been reading in this corner of the web for nearly two years now and it has been, to say the least, transformative.
Tangentially related to the original post, but quite relevant to the blog overall–If you were a Christian man soon to be married (having attempted to ‘vet’ very VERY carefully along the way), what set(s) of vows would you consider using? My fiancée and I are [i]not[/i] planning on attempting to write our own, and would like something that is biblically sound (e.g. not “blue pill”!) and representing the actual PROMISES of marriage.
I’m somewhat involved in Christian ministries, but would have to admit a rather lacking knowledge of historical sets of Christian wedding vows.

For any of you who are brothers in Christ, prayers are appreciated for someone who will be seeking to start and lead a godly family in a climate that is dead-set against both, and that I can make some positive biblically-based difference through my ministry involvements as well.
Thanks for any wisdom you may be able to share.

If you insist on exchanging vows go back the old version of the protestant vow where the bride says obey. [Pre 1920s version]
Or alternatively get married in an Orthodox church, the couple don’t exchange vows at all. IIRC.

“Even though my wife was not born or raised here (missing out on the feminist indoctrination the locals are subjected to), I keep constant vigilance over those things that would influence her for the worse.”

Joshua’sBattle, however you structure your vows focus them on the promise of to love each other, and what to love the other means to each of you. These promises should reflect your faith, and how you want your marriage to express His love. Ephesians 5:21- 33, is a good place to start. Remember, your vows are not just to each other before God, they are vows you make to Him. This is most important, as there may be times that it would be easy to break your commitment to her, but it would be considerably harder to break your commitment to God. This fact has saved me a couple of times, as I was so focused on her selfishness and how it affected me, I was blind to my own selfishness. My commitment to Him made me work it out and to eventually see my own selfishness. Let your commitment to Him be the foundation of your marriage.
A couple of years into my marriage (going on 29 years) I started to praying during love making. It changed me dramatically. It purged me of my selfishness, and showed me how I wasn’t honoring her, nor God. My desire since, is to make our union a holy experience. Paul in Ephesians compared physical union in marriage being like our union to Him. Every part of marriage is ordained by God, invite Him n everything.
My prayer for you is that to two of you experience loving someone who reflects the Image of God so differently and you let that difference change each of you to be more like Him. Your brother in Christ.

@Snowden: This is why we use the Red Pill analogy and why so much is written about the anger stage. We call this a “Victim Puke” on https://www.reddit.com/r/marriedredpill and I want to promise you that it will get better.

Of course you have ample reason to be more angry than even the average screwed (or unscrewed) guy in the room and I have read all of your posts very carefully. Your story is worthy of a mini-series as are the millions of stories exactly like yours. We get it and this is what we are talking about. Our system sucks, Christianity is broken.

However, joining Islam because you are angry at women seems like a pretty terrible idea. You will find the same White Knights and the same feminism in the Mosque unless you are prepared to, ahem…fly to Turkey…and as you cross the border you can wave to the nice Russian pilots flying overhead.

I think I speak for more than just myself when I tell you that Dalrock, and the men of this blog are not the persons on whom your anger should be targeted.

Get your shit together bro. Start by getting a gym membership and getting in shape. Seriously, I mean Bro, do you even lift? Now is a great time to sign up for a martial arts class. Join an intramural sports team. Get active. Get busy. I know you don’t feel like it and I don’t give a shit. Do it.

You know, if she was emotionally and physically exhausted after years of advocacy, and needed to be out of the spotlight for a while, I could totally appreciate that. Who can imagine what a drain that must be on the body and spirit. But then to turn around and publicly shame her husband who is even still languishing in an Iranian prison. More narcissistic and cold one could not be.

Circumstantial proof of just how toxic modern western –particularly modern American— culture is to everything that comes into contact with it (even … no, especially Christianity) and how quickly it destroys its host.

I wouldn’t go that far. I think the Western culture allows women’s nature to be more fully realized. It’s how God created women. Strong religious culture is a tool to keep male and female nature in check. Not a cure-all, but better than secularism of the West.

Joshua’sBattle said on January 7, 2016 at 4:50 pm:
What set(s) of vows would you consider using?

I do not know of a set of vows, but I would look for something including love and submission (subjection). Emerson Eggerichs teaches “Love and Respect” (based on Ephesians 5:33), but I think it should be “Love and Submission”, because submission of the wife to the husband is stated more often and in more detail. See the following passages (I have highlighted forms of love, subjection, and respect):

[Eph 5:22-33 NASB] 22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless. 28 So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; 29 for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, 30 because we are members of His body. 31 FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND SHALL BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH. 32 This mystery is great; but I am speaking with reference to Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless, each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband.

[Col 3:18 NASB] 18 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as is fitting in the Lord.

[Tit 2:4-5 NASB] 4 so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be sensible, pure, workers at home, kind, being subject to their own husbands, so that the word of God will not be dishonored.

[1Pe 3:1 NASB] 1 In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, ….

Rather than have a licensed churchian wedding with vows, a far better way to go is marriage without a license using a written Marital Covenant in which you can have, in writing, your marital agreement. It’s easy enough to incorporate by reference 1st Peter 3, 1st Corinthians 7 and Ephesians 5 by reference, then extract the relevant points and clarify them.

However, if one really wants to get Biblical, the question arises, ‘what is marriage?” We know that God gave the authority to the man to initiate marriage (Genesis 2:24). The relationship between man and woman changed when Eve was cursed (“he shall rule over you” Genesis 3:16) and later the Law of Moses gave the man the authority to end marriage for cause (Deut. 24:1-3). Jesus clarified the grounds for divorce under the Law (only for sexual immorality) and then Jesus placed a restriction on marriage, but only for married believers (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), forbidding them to divorce with no exceptions for sexual immorality. Over and over again, in keeping with the curse (he shall rule over you) Scripture commands the wife to submit to her husband in everything, but at no point in all of Scripture do we see marriage defined or see any instruction on how one goes about initiating a marriage.

In general it seems that there are 4 elements of a Biblical marriage: The permission of the woman’s father, the agreement between man and woman to marry, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife. At least, that’s what I used to think until I really studied the subject.

Is the agreement of the father of the woman necessary for them to be married? No. The man may be required to pay the bride-price later, but the consent of the father is not required, although honor demands it.

Is the agreement of the woman to marry necessary for her to be married? No, her father or guardian could give the consent for her, even against her will, or the man could simply decide to take her as his wife without anyone’s consent… even hers.

Is the consummation of the marriage necessary for husband and wife to be joined in marriage? Yes, the act of becoming one flesh is the sine qua non of marriage.

Is cohabitation as husband and wife necessary to establish the marriage? No.

OK, it looks like you’re saying that having sex with a woman is the act of marrying her. Is that what you’re saying?

No, the commitment on the part of the man to marry the woman must be present. Just because a man used a prostitute (not forbidden in the Law) did not mean he was marrying her, because he had no intent or commitment to marry her. However, if the man purposes in his heart that he is going to marry a woman, having sex with her after that is literally the beginning of their marriage. But, don’t listen to me, look at what God said:

In Exodus 22:16-17, if a man seduces a virgin… he is consummating his marriage to her. He is to pay the father the bride price and they are married. However, the father has the right to rescind the vows of his daughter (Numbers 30), and since she willingly participated in having sex with the man (agreeing to be married to the guy) her father has the right to say no. If he does so, the man has to pay an amount equal to the bride price and that’s it.

Contrast that with Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which a man *seizes* a virgin and forces her to lie with him. In that case they are married, he is required to pay 50 shekels of silver to her father and he can’t divorce her all his days. Yet, there is no prohibition or condemnation of this behavior and the father can’t refuse to allow the marriage.

Why can’t her father refuse to allow the marriage? Because he forced her, she made no agreement he could rescind.

Why isn’t this penalized? He *raped* her! I can’t believe God is condoning rape! God does not condone rape and the previous verses illustrate this. Rape is a death penalty offense. However, the man did not rape her, he initiated his marriage to her and it isn’t possible under God’s Law for a husband to rape his wife.

So, from a Biblical standpoint, the man and woman are married when the man makes the commitment (does not have to be verbal) to marry her and they have sex. At that point they are married.

When it comes time to get married, if the woman’s agreement to marry isn’t necessary, does it really matter what she says or even if she doesn’t say anything at all? No.

Then where did all this vows stuff come from and what’s the point?

The RCC. When they took control of marriage, everything they did was designed to empower the wife at the expense of the husband. Bringing the wife into the ceremony and letting her open her mouth gave the illusion that her words meant something and implied that she had agency, that she wasn’t under the curse and that her husband didn’t have complete authority over her. The Orthodox church holds with the more traditional marriage ceremony with no exchange of vows, but the RCC started the thing with vows in order to get the husband’s to verbally agree to a bunch of stuff they would hold him to later. This had nothing to do with the common people, it was all about the church’s war on the nobility, because the church wanted to control the nobility in order to gain power.

The RCC literally created feminism by seizing control of marriage (God gave that authority to the man), invading the family and usurping the husband’s authority, regulating even the marital bed, creating rules God never did to cause contention between husband and wife in order that the church could gain power by being the arbiter of the dispute or even by putting the man on trial for misconduct. The whole wedding vow exchange was part of this, it has nothing to do with the Bible.

I’ll ask one question. If the commitment to marry the woman by the man followed by sex is the initiation of marriage, isn’t is safe to say a lot of people are married and don’t know it, and wouldn’t that make for a good Sunday school discussion…

While sex is necessary to define marriage, it is a bit of a stretch to claim that the approval of the father, and especially that of the bride to be, is not necessary for a marriage to take place. Throughout scripture, ALL examples of godly marriages required the approval of the woman, and often that of the father or his representative. While there are examples of marriages where women were captured in battle and forcefully married, we must remember that that was not the norm, but God had to address it as part of His laws to Israel.
Even in the NT, consent is a big part of the marriage covenant, particularly the woman’s consent, and this trounces the man’s desire to marry her:

A wife is bound as long as her husband lives; but if her husband is dead, she is free to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord 1 Corinthians 7:39

Clearly, irrespective of the man’s desire to marry a Christian sister, the latter’s consent is necessary to establish the marriage. She willingly gives herself, and her husband takes her to himself, and makes her his, completing the process. It is a mistake to ignore the role played by the woman in consenting to marriage. As a matter of fact, the whole process of courtship is designed to woo the woman, win her heart and secure her consent to marry. Anything outside this setup is abnormal, and is not how God intended it.

Disobedience, disloyalty, betrayal…
If Abedini comes out of prison and hears all that has been happening can we honestly say we will rebuke him should he lash out (physically) at his wife?
In all honesty, I don’t think so.

There are of course notable exceptions to what the Bishop says…
This week I met one.

A young woman came to my workplace this week for a doctor’s certificate because she needed some time off work to sort out her life.
Why?
She had been beaten by her husband and needed to leave her home – together with her baby son, Born just last year. From her medical notes, I see that she had a traumatic pregnancy…
This young lady had refused to involve the Police (I asked her if she had, just so I could prepare a separate report for the Police if needed). She refused to badmouth her husband even in the confidential conversation with me. All she wanted was a pause from work while she sorted out a place for her and Baby to stay, while her husband got the help he needed for his Depression which was now escalating to violence.
She had taken a break from work after Baby arrived (naturally enough) but now she had had to go back to work because of her circumstances which were beyond her control.
I respect this young woman so much. How many women would resist the temptation to abandon Husband and take money from him and the state?

Instead of abandoning him in his hour of need, she was doing her best to cater for herself and their son and to give him the space he needed to sort himself out at which point she would reunite the family. She appeared very focussed and serene to me.
I take my hat off for a woman like this!
Brava, I say.

Mrs. Abedini doesn’t know what real abuse is.
Interesting that the real victims of abuse are the ones who make the least noise about it.

Interesting that the real victims of abuse are the ones who make the least noise about it.

This is absolutely fact. And the converse, those who are being emotionally abused….he wont talk to her….etc….they cant shut up about it and even stay online on various Christian marriage sites and try and convince other women to see the abuse in their lives. They recruit. Ive seen it many times when a woman writes a marital issue post and they start asking, “Don’t you know that that is abuse?” “Don’t you know the scars are invisible but never heal?’

Oh, wait, you mean there is emotional abuse and verbal abuse that necessarily accompany physical abuse? That physical abuse is not done silently, clinically, the guy just randomly, no drama, no argument(s) he just quickly beats her and then leaves the room. No emotional issues therefore that emotional abuse is worse because the beaten woman takes NSAIDS and gets some rest and is better.

I expect the original purpose of vows was because literacy was rare and copies of Scripture expensive for most of the Church’s history. A formal exchange of vows ensured both husband and wife understood their roles. Doing so in front of witnesses was a form of notarization. Hence the marriage ceremony.

The historical inaccessibility of the Bible explains a lot of Catholic practices.

Contrast that with Deuteronomy 22:28-29, in which a man *seizes* a virgin and forces her to lie with him. In that case they are married, he is required to pay 50 shekels of silver to her father and he can’t divorce her all his days. Yet, there is no prohibition or condemnation of this behavior and the father can’t refuse to allow the marriage.

Why can’t her father refuse to allow the marriage? Because he forced her, she made no agreement he could rescind.

Why isn’t this penalized? He *raped* her! I can’t believe God is condoning rape! God does not condone rape and the previous verses illustrate this. Rape is a death penalty offense. However, the man did not rape her, he initiated his marriage to her and it isn’t possible under God’s Law for a husband to rape his wife.

A similar allowance exists in sharia law: wherein the seducer of an innocent girl may be pardoned and escape punishment (something between a series of whippings and being crushed to death with large rocks, I believe) if the father asks the Islamic court for leniency. The father gets mercy for the man who wronged his family, and the added bonus of an instant marriage for his now damaged daughter. The stipulation of marriage without possibility of divorce is clearly understood to be punishment for the man who seduced a nice but homely girl for a roll in the sand.

I always found the idea of being on the receiving end of such a judgment, simultaneously funny and horrifying. I can imagine a suave 12th century playa, who finally scores, Roosh V style, with a mediocre young chick who would otherwise be unmarriagable for reasons of looks or family poverty, and facing the prospect that he is now shackled to this woman for the rest of his life. I imagine this probably worked pretty well in cooling off any young man who had such designs.

If you aren’t bruised, bloody, or physically broken, it isn’t abuse. Emotional abuse is more feminist PC BS. Abuse has turned into one of those words (like neglect, love, marriage, and rape) in western society that doesn’t mean anything serious on a grand scale anymore.

I could be wrong, but Orthodox Churches have a different take on the wedding ceremony in that there are no wedding vows.
—Just A Regular Guy

The commitments the couple make during Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox wedding ceremonies are not expressed verbally, but through symbolic actions. Those actions express the same commitments that couples make verbally in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.

God provided no specific form or process for the initiation of marriage. You can claim “All Godly marriages had the consent of the woman and usually had the consent of the father or guardian” but this is false logic because the implication is *somehow* the consent of the woman and permission of the father has an impact on whether the marriage is Godly. In fact, it is the choice by individuals within any given marriage who choose to be Godly that makes their marriage a Godly marriage. I can give you plenty of examples of men who married virgins with their consent and the permission of her father along with all the churchian pomp and circumstance, who still went feral, committed adultery and/or nuked the family. Obviously the consent of the woman and the permission of the father have no defining impact on whether the marriage is a Godly one or not.

When God commands a specific form or ceremony for a thing, we are to obey and *why* God gave the command is irrelevant because He’s God. He gets to make the rules and it’s our job to obey. However, when God chooses not to provide any particular form or ceremony for a thing and doesn’t even bother to suggest anything, how the thing is accomplished is left up to the person with the authority to make the thing happen.

A cursory reading of the text I cited (and the fact those are the only two passages that are on point) should inform you that according to the standard of Romans 4:15 and 5:13, what most Christians would call “premarital sex” is not a sin, but that is to miss the entire point. Yes, “premarital sex” is NOT sexual immorality (fornication) because sexual immorality is a sin (again, read Romans 4:15 and 5:13) and if any particular act isn’t prohibited or otherwise condemned in the Law it isn’t a transgression or a sin. The problem with the “premarital sex isn’t a sin” idea… is that isn’t what those passages are actually talking about. For that you have to dig deeper.

In fact, 1st Corinthians 7:39 does not apply to what I was talking about because the woman in 1st Corinthians 7:39 is not a virgin, not under the authority of her father, not under the authority of her husband and thus has limited agency. Yes, she is free to *choose* to marry but restricted in her choice of *whom* to marry, they must be “in Christ.” As such, she falls into the same category as widows and other women who have been legitimately divorced. However, that was not the subject of the passages I cited and it wasn’t what I was talking about.

I didn’t just juxtapose Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 because they were the most on-point passages, but also because in comparing and contrasting them several things should come to your attention. Look at the points of commonality:

The first is that both passages refer to acts involving a virgin who is not betrothed. These women are under the authority of their father, who has the right to rescind any vow they might make concerning literally anything.

The second is they both describe a virgin having sex with a man, although neither passage differentiates between a single or married man because in either case the man can marry the virgin, a man having the right to more than one wife.

The third is after taking her virginity the man has to pay either the bride price or an amount equal to that to the father (Exodus passage) or pay an amount of 50 Shekels of silver to the father (Deuteronomy passage).

The points of difference are:

In the Exodus passage the virgin is seduced, that is she willingly participates in giving her virginity to the man, while in the Deuteronomy passage the virgin is forced and her virginity is taken from her against her will.

In the Exodus passage the father has the authority to refuse to allow the marriage of the man to his daughter, while in the Deuteronomy passage the father does not have the authority to refuse the marriage.

In the Exodus passage the couple are automatically married (unless the father refuses) but in the Deuteronomy passage the couple is only married if they are discovered.

In the Exodus passage the man can at some point in the future divorce the woman he seduced but in the Deuteronomy passage the man can never divorce her all the days of his life because he has humbled her.

So, the points of commonality are a virgin not betrothed having sex with a man and afterward the man has to pay money to the father of the deflowered virgin he has now married. The points of difference are the father can refuse to allow them to be married if his daughter is seduced but can’t refuse the marriage if she’s forced; in a seduction they are automatically married even if they are not discovered having sex (although the father can nullify) but in the case where the woman is forced they are only automatically married if they are discovered having sex; and with the marriage by seduction the man retains the right to divorce her but with the marriage by force he can never divorce her all the days of his life.

Examining these points of commonality and difference, a question arises.

Why can the father refuse the marriage if his virgin daughter is seduced (consents and willingly participates), but not if she does not consent and is forced?

Refer to Numbers 30, the Law of Vows. Where the daughter willingly agreed to participate, she agreed to be married. Her father has the right to nullify that decision and refuse the marriage. In the case where the daughter did not consent (she was forced) she made no agreement he could nullify and the marriage stands.

Within the context of the man holding the authority to initiate marriage and the two critical points being his intent to marry and the consummation of the marriage, these two passages demonstrate that in both cases the man, by taking something that could not be replaced (her virginity) was initiating marriage with the act of taking her virginity and only an outside influence (or lack) would prevent the marriage. The fact the woman who was forced to have sex against her will is automatically married (if discovered) combines with the father’s ability to nullify her decision to marry when seduced to demonstrate that whether she wanted to be married or not is irrelevant, and neither her consent or lack of consent impacts the *validity* of the marriage.

For this reason the term “premarital sex” is a misnomer. There is no such thing as premarital sex because what we think of as premarital sex is either the consummation of a marriage, adultery or garden-variety sluttery. If the virgin willingly gives up her virginity she’s now married and any sex she has with the guy she just married is marital sex, not premarital sex. After that (assuming Dad didn’t annul the marriage) if she has sex with any other guy it’s still not premarital sex, it’s adultery because she’s married. If her father annulled the marriage she’s still not a virgin, and although she’s eligible to marry (if she’s honest about not being a virgin), if she’s having sex with men she’s just being a slut, she’s not automatically married to them. If she later tries to pass herself off as a virgin, gets marriage and gets caught not being a virgin, that’s a death penalty offense.

I’ll pause to let that sink in.

I suspect the reality of all that is the *reason* for elaborate marriage ceremonies- to make sure both of them understand, and especially the woman they are now married.

When looked at from this perspective, the studies that show a woman who was a virgin when she married or had only ever had sex with the man she married has an 87% chance of a stable marriage (defined as over 30 years old, whose current marriage has lasted more than 5 years) actually make sense. Giving away her virginity was the consummation of her marriage and if her father didn’t annul the marriage, with each additional partner she was committing adultery. With each additional adulterous liason we see a steady decline in the chances of a stable marriage until we reach the point of ten or more partners prior to marriage, in which case her chances of a stable marriage are down around 25%. Again, these are the percentages of women over 30 years old having a “stable marriage” which is defined in the studies (there were three of them: 1995, 2002 and 2006-2008) as being married to their *current* partner for more than 5 years.

Studies that looked at premarital sexual partners and the likelihood of divorce showed the same thing: that women who enter marriage as a virgin have less than a 10% chance of getting divorced and as the number of premarital sexual partners rises there is a direct, linear correlation between the number of partners and the chances of divorce. According to the study, a woman with 21 or more premarital sexual partners (not that high a number these days) has almost a 60% chance of getting divorced.

Sin has consequences and adultery as I’ve just described is the gift that keeps on giving.

The specifics of the passages cited opens up another question. If there is no such thing as premarital sex, what about extra-marital sex? Obviously that exists. Although forbidden to Christians (1st Cor. 6) the use of a prostitute is not forbidden in the Law (whether the man is married or single). However, the prohibition in 1st Corinthians 6 applies only to prostitutes. But, there is no prohibition in either the Law or anything specific to Christianity that says a man can’t have extra-marital sex with a woman eligible to marry. By eligible to marry I mean (based on Scripture) she’s a widow, legitimately divorced or a not-married non-virgin (given what I’ve just gone over that would consist of the seduced virgin whose father wouldn’t allow the marriage or those raped and not discovered, and I’d guess the numbers of such women is significant). There being no direct prohibition in the Law and no specific prohibition WRT Christianity, that means the issue devolves to Romans 14:23 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (He who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him that is sin). There are also plenty of admonitions commanding us not to judge in such situations.

However, similar to the problem of trying to find a woman to marry in middle age (when just about all of the women are illegitimately divorced and any marriage/sex with them would be adultery), even for the guy who is engaging in extra-marital sex “by faith” and doesn’t believe it’s either right or wrong (avoiding the James 4:17 issue), extra-marital sex is a minefield when it comes to the possibility of learning after the fact that the woman was actually married (you just committed adultery) or she was a virgin (surprise! You either just got married or you’ve got another wife!).

TL; DR:

Before you have sex with any woman other than your legitimately married wife, have a long talk with the woman’s dad, because it’s truly rare to find a virgin these days. There is a significant possibility that from God’s perspective, even though she didn’t walk down the aisle and officially get married, she’s actually married and at whatever point you start banging her you’re both committing adultery. And sin has consequences.

“Jesus clarified the grounds for divorce under the Law (only for sexual immorality) and then Jesus placed a restriction on marriage, but only for married believers (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), forbidding them to divorce with no exceptions for sexual immorality.”

Once again AT comes out of the woodwork to peddle false doctrines. I don’t care that this was said it in passing. He’s a liar and a false teacher. He’s been cranking out his garbage for months now intermittently.

AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
1) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God.
2) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man.

Contrary to his above quote, a man may divorce and remarry for sexual immorality. It’s fully in line with the scriptures.

Matt. 5: 32 is clear,
“But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

In no way does 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 alter or nullify this. God separates a man and wife when a woman is divorced for sexual immorality.

THERE IS NO EQUIVALENT BETWEEN THE VIRGIN BRIDE OF CHRIST AND AN ADULTERESS.

3) “But, there is no prohibition in either the Law or anything specific to Christianity that says a man can’t have extra-marital sex with a woman eligible to marry.”

AT now also falsely claims that there is no specific prohibition for extramarital sex. “Sexual immorality(porneia)” most certainly includes premarital sex.

Galatians 5: 20-21,
“Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.”

And no, 1 Cor. 6 doesn’t apply only to prostitutes. Paul just uses the example of a prostitute to show the evil implications of extramarital sex.

You need to read “Law, Sex, and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage. You will then understand exactly where feminism came from. As far as feminism going back to Adam and Eve, you need to do a serious study on the Curse on Eve found in Genesis 3:16. Or, you could read some of my previous comments in which I’ve explained it. While Adam and Eve may have had a perfectly egalitarian marriage in the beginning, with the curse that ended “he shall rule over you.” Ephesians 5:22-24 points directly back to the “he shall rule over you” part of the curse when it commands the wife to submit to her husband in everything, as unto the Lord.

To claim that my statement that the RCC created feminism is a false accusation is simply ignorance of the history of the church. Virtually every point of feminism got its start when the Catholic church took control of marriage (although God gave that authority to the man, not the church), invaded the family, usurping the authority of the husband (authority given to him and him alone) and regulated the family, including the marital bed (a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, adding to the Law).

The church did this intentionally with no basis in Scripture to justify their actions because they were competing with the nobility and trying to gain control over the nobility. Their chosen strategy was to take control of marriage, add numerous restrictions (no polygyny, no cousin marriages out to the 6th degree, many, many restrictions on when, where, and how one could have sex with one’s wife and even for what purpose). Brundage’s work (his Magnus Opus at 900+ pages of fantastic scholarship) clearly demonstrates this. The war on the nobility combined with the early church father’s disgust with sex (even within marriage sex was considered a “necessary evil”) combined to produce some of the most egregious problems we have today.

In fact, it is perfectly reasonable to say that the reason homosexuality is legal today is because of the Church’s complete disregard of God’s command not to add to the law. Because the churches teachings on marriage for over 1000 years became embedded in the culture (they empowered wives against their husbands), these teachings were reflected in the civil laws. In fact, as late as the 1920’s a man could go to jail in every state in the United States for the crime of getting a blowjob from his wife (oral sodomy). Because the church forbid what was permitted and regulated the marital bed far in excess of the restrictions God chose to place on the marital bed, the Anderson decision swept away *all* the sodomy laws and in doing so what God forbid is now permitted. This cannot be laid at the feet of any other than the culprits, the RCC.

Is the consummation of the marriage necessary for husband and wife to be joined in marriage? Yes, the act of becoming one flesh is the sine qua non of marriage.
Is cohabitation as husband and wife necessary to establish the marriage? No.
OK, it looks like you’re saying that having sex with a woman is the act of marrying her. Is that what you’re saying?
No, the commitment on the part of the man to marry the woman must be present.

Great post Toad, [I don’t agree with everything] but I would like to present a slightly different point of view regarding the use of vows.

When Jesus was born His parents [Joe and Mary] had not consummated their marriage, but the marriage existed already from the betrothal agreement, which was binding. This briefly explains my understanding of this subject. Its very similar to your explanation, but there is a slight twist.
These 2 steps to marriage are represented by 2 different covenants described in the scripture.
1 The betrothal covenant, this is represented by the Church. 2Cor. 11:2
2 The marriage covenant, this is represented by Israel. Jer. 3

The differences between these covenants is as follows:
The betrothal covenant is non-sexual, and the deal can be called off it the bride screws around. Matt.19:9 aka the exception clause.
The marriage covenant is sexual, which is permanent until death.

If these steps are formalised by ceremony they make a clear public declaration as to the status of the couple involved. If we skip step 1 and go straight into step 2 then all the girls are damaged goods. [as outlined in your post]
Having the betrothal time prior to the consummation of the marriage, then requires a date for the ‘big bang’. This event is compared to the status of the church now, soon to be married. And the event itself is huge turning point for the couple, usually enshrined with the exchange of vows.

A major mistake which you seem to be making (and which many bible interpreters often make) is being stuck with the lettrs of the law, without seeing the spirit of that law.
One major principle of biblical interpretation is to allow the Bible to speak fully on the subject at hand. In other words, we cannot interprete any section of Scripture to the detriment of other sections. From your explanations however, you seem to build a doctrine out of a verse of Scripture, and that is the fastest path to heresy.
First and foremost, the two passages that you quoted from Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 are complementary, but your interpretations are inaccurate, in my opinion.

When a man seduces a maid, and deflowers her, he has, in effect, dishonored her father, because even though he won the maid’s heart, he did not respect the wishes of the maid’s father before taking her daughter. Hence the authority of the father to refuse the marriage to her daughter. However, when a man rapes a virgin, he not only sins against her and her father, he sins against God also, and that explains the lifelong sentence that is imposed: he must marry the maid and never divorce her all the days of his life.

All that apart, the modern Christian is not under the Law of the OT. As believers in Christ we have been eternally, completely and irrevocably delivered from the demands of the Law, and not subject to its sanctions. Thus, everything you wrote above are totally irrelevant in these days. If you wanted to establish any doctrine for the believer, you must do so using the NT text. So, maybe you might want to quote the relevant passages from the epistles of Paul or Peter or James or John, and then we can have this conversation.
But be careful of making doctrines out of your own preferences. That is how many false doctrines start.

I totally agree with Boxer (who said, inter alia, that forcing the playa to marry his virgin conquest without the possibility of a divorce, is actually a punishment), and with Gunner, that Eve was the first feminist (“strong, independent woman” who was as dumb as a rock.

@Dave: You say: “One major principle of biblical interpretation is to allow the Bible to speak fully on the subject at hand. In other words, we cannot [interpret] any section of Scripture to the detriment of other sections.” Then you say: “If you wanted to establish any doctrine for the believer, you must do so using the NT text.”
.
Of course, inconsistency is a very human attribute.

I don’t know what you are getting at. Did you mean to suggest that it is inconsistent for a Bible believing Christian to maintain that we are no longer under the Law? That somehow, it is detrimental to the OT to recognize the finished work of Christ? Really?

For all those OT enthusiasts out there, they are not at liberty to pick and choose from the OT. If they must subject the Christian to any part of the OT then in the name of consistency, they must subject them to every OT precept.

“And I testify again to every man who [subjects themselves to any OT requirement]*, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.” Galatians 5:3

AT has falsely claimed in the past that:
1) Deuteronomy was just a “judicial ruling” and not the command of God.
2) Lesbianism is biblical if it’s between two women married to the same man.

You didn’t get that right, but no need for me to repeat this, I explained it concisely HERE

Wormtongue complains:3) “But, there is no prohibition in either the Law or anything specific to Christianity that says a man can’t have extra-marital sex with a woman eligible to marry.”

AT now also falsely claims that there is no specific prohibition for extramarital sex. “Sexual immorality(porneia)” most certainly includes premarital sex.

No, wormtongue, I *correctly* claimed that… so if you want to throw charges around, back them up. But, since you obviously don’t even know what sexual immorality is, keep reading.

Porneia is sexual immorality and sexual immorality is sin. We agree on this. Everyone should agree on this. However, and pay close attention, YOU seem to have a disagreement with guys like Moses and the Apostle Paul over what sexual immorality actually is. I’m not saying you’re a total dickwhistle, but if it comes to a choice between who I believe I’m going with them and the stuff they wrote in the Bible rather than your opinion.

In order for you to understand the definition of sexual immorality you have to first take a look at Romans 4:15 and 5:13. Sin is in the world, but where there is no Law (check the Greek on that, it’s referring to the Mosaic Law) there is no transgression and there is no sin imputed.

No Law (meaning no prohibition or condemnation) means that whatever isn’t prohibited isn’t sin. Even when you get into the violations of conscience (Romans 14:23 “that which is not of faith is sin) it isn’t the act itself that is the sin, it is the violation of conscience. That is why some (their faith is strong) can eat meat sacrificed to idols. Others, their faith is weak so they eat only vegetables because eating meat sacrificed to idols would be a sin for them. Thus, the exact same act (eating meat sacrificed to idols) is not a sin to one man but is a sin to another, NOT because the act of eating meat sacrificed to idols is a sin but because the conscience of the weak man would be offended if he ate the meat. The sin is offending the conscience.

So, since we know that sexual immorality is sin, and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 tell us that ONLY the stuff that’s prohibited in the Law is sin, we know that all we have to do to define sexual immorality is to list all the sexual stuff that’s forbidden in the Law. When we do, we discover things like

Incest is forbidden
Adultery is forbidden
Sex between two men is forbidden
Both women and men having sex with animals is forbidden.
Rape is forbidden.
Marrying a mother and her daughter or a grandmother and her granddaughter is forbidden.
Having sex with your wife while she’s on her period is forbidden.
A woman who fraudulently marries claiming to be a virgin when she’s not is forbidden.

I may have left a couple out (just going off memory here) but there isn’t any prohibition in the Law on a man, either married or unmarried, having sex with a prostitute. You may want to look closely at Samson, who did not violate his Nazerite vow by having sex with prostitutes (Judges 16:1-3) because the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him when he did so and did not depart from him until he violated his Nazerite vow by having his hair cut. You might want to take a look at the requirements of the Nazerite vow (Numbers 6) and notice the requirement for the Nazerite remain clean and holy. Ergo, Samson was clean and holy even using prostitutes. Why? Because it wasn’t a sin!

There is no prohibition on a man having sex with a virgin who is not betrothed and it doesn’t matter whether it’s with her consent or against her will. I just went over that and the two passages that discuss this are Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.

There is no mention of a man (married or otherwise) having sex with a woman who is not a virgin but otherwise eligible to marry him. No mention is another way of saying “no prohibition.” Get it?

There is a specific prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes and it applies only to prostitutes because only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a whore. However, a careful reading of the text demonstrates that the restriction was only on Christians and only restricted the use of prostitutes. Thus, there is still no prohibition on a Christian man (married or otherwise) having sex with a woman who is eligible to marry that isn’t his wife. If she is a virgin, having sex with her is an act of marriage. If she is eligible to marry but isn’t a virgin (a widow, a legitimately divorced woman or a never-married woman who is not a virgin) having sex with her does not automatically trigger a marriage to her, that depends on HIS intent and HER agreement to marry.

And no, 1 Cor. 6 doesn’t apply only to prostitutes. Paul just uses the example of a prostitute to show the evil implications of extramarital sex.

Reading comprehension, wormtongue. I know you *want* 1st Cor. 6 to include any and all extramarital sex, but it doesn’t because that isn’t what the text says. It is specific to joining the members of Christ to a whore. Yes, it also says to flee from sexual immorality, but the passage does NOT say using a whore is sexual immorality. To understand the passage you’d probably have to read it in the Greek, but I’m guessing that’s beyond you. However, in order to keep your interpretation congruent with the text, you’re saying that *all* non-virgins eligible to marry are whores. That’s quite a slander, even for you.

Wormtongue says: AT now also falsely claims that there is no specific prohibition for extramarital sex. “Sexual immorality(porneia)” most certainly includes premarital sex.

Sexual immorality is a sin. Romans 4:15 and 5:13 say that only the stuff forbidden by the Law is a sin, so please cite the chapter and verse from the Law that forbids premarital sex. If you cannot cite chapter and verse clearly demonstrating that sex with a woman eligible** to marry is a sin, you are a liar. If you can cite a specific prohibition in the Law, then I’m the liar. But, just so you don’t embarrass yourself, don’t try to claim “Be holy, for I am Holy” is a prohibition (Samson, remember?) I’m sure there are more than a few people here that would love to see you win this, so get busy. Give it your best shot.

You claim that divorce is permitted because the Law says a man can divorce his wife for porneia. I agree with you, that’s true, but it also doesn’t apply to Christians. Unfortunately, judging from your past diatribes, you seem to be more than a little emotionally damaged on this subject. I’m guessing the problem is you’re a repulsive beta white knight and your wife was so starved for masculine dominance that she was emotionally blown away when some random masculine guy smiled at her and said “Hi.” She was drowning in your oozing beta supplication and she grabbed at that guy’s masculinity like it was a life preserver. One thing led to another, she committed adultery, you found out about it and you divorced her. Now, the Holy Spirit is tearing you up on the inside because of your sin.

I understand, you aren’t the only one to ever make a mistake and wives hit on me all the time, so I’ll try to sidestep your emotional angst and use an analogy.

Let’s say you got a GREAT job offer with a company that required, as a condition of employment, that you sign a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) in which you agree to protect and not share company secrets. In addition you are required to sign a non-compete agreement in which you agree to not compete with the company using the proprietary secrets/techniques you will learn while working for the company for a period of five years and not compete with the company within a geographical radius of 100 miles for an additional period of five years after that.

Several years later you realize you could make more money on your own, so you quit your job and open up an office on the other side of town, competing with your former employer using the information and skills you gained while working for them (in violation of the NDA and non-compete agreements you signed). The company sues you for breach of contract.

When you go to trial you stand before the court and say “I have the right of free speech! Right there in the Constitution, the Constitution says it. And I have the right to contract and that’s right there in the Constitution too. The Constitution says it and I have the right to do it!” I have heard arguments like this in court before and I’ve heard the court *correctly* say “The Constitution does not apply here.”

Even a half-assed 1st year law student would correctly explain that when the court renders its decision, will find in favor of your former employer and award them a substantial judgment for your willful and gross breach of contract. While it’s true that you have the right of free speech and freedom to contract, you specifically waived your rights in equitable contract. When you signed the NDA and non-compete agreement, you waived your right to free speech and freedom to contract in the specific areas of trade secrets and skills you learned from your employer in return for employment, for which you were well paid. You Lose. Your next stop is probably bankruptcy court, but if you violate your NDA and non-compete agreements again your next stop will be jail.

Wormtongue, in claiming that Matthew 19:6 gives any Christian man married to a Christian woman the right to divorce is the same thing as the example above. You can claim “Jesus said it” and point to either Matthew 5:31-32 or Matthew 19 all day long, but it does not change the fact that for his bondservants, Jesus made a specific prohibition on divorce for two married believers in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11. You and every other Christian was bought with a price and your life is not your own. You entered into His service as a result of receiving eternal salvation and your Master has every right to place restrictions on the members of His household. He has done so. One of them is a prohibition on sex with prostitutes. Another is a prohibition on divorce between married believers. Deal with it. If I’m right, you need to repent and ask your wife for forgiveness because you’re still married. If you married another woman who was eligible to marry, it’s OK, that just means you have two wives. It’s not a big deal and threesomes are a lot of fun. If you married another woman that wasn’t eligible to marry (illegitimately divorced) then you’re in adultery and have some serious problems to solve.

** Eligible to marry would include virgins not betrothed, widows, women who were lawfully divorced and never-married non-virgins. Sex with the virgin triggers marriage: it is the act of consummating the marriage because she has no agency. I just went over that. All others eligible to marry have agency and sex with them does not consummate a marriage with them unless it is the intent of the man to marry them and the woman consents to marry him.

While Adam and Eve may have had a perfectly egalitarian marriage in the beginning, with the curse that ended “he shall rule over you.” Ephesians 5:22-24 points directly back to the “he shall rule over you” part of the curse when it commands the wife to submit to her husband in everything, as unto the Lord.

Nope! Ephesians 5:22-33 demonstrates how a marriage is supposed to be when two Christians who are married are interacting the way God intended, like Christ and His bride the Church. The curse has the effect of a wife desiring to dominate a husband in the way that sin desired Cain, and then a husband ruling over a wife in an unloving, un-Christ like manner. So you have a struggle for dominance rather than unity between the head (authority) and the helpmate. Egalitarianism is not biblical, not before the fall, not after the fall, not anytime.

@Don Quixote
“The differences between these covenants is as follows:
The betrothal covenant is non-sexual, and the deal can be called off it the bride screws around. Matt.19:9 aka the exception clause.
The marriage covenant is sexual, which is permanent until death.”

This is false and you know it Don. Christ’s simple usage of the word porneia means He refers to all manner of sexual sin – including adultery. Also, Matt. 19: 9 was an answer to the question referring to marriages AFTER they were consummated.

God separates a man from his former wife if he divorces her for sexual immorality. You were shown this months ago and you know it.

This is a very, very dangerous stance to take with respect to the Scriptures. Just because the Bible is silent on a particular practice DOES NOT mean it endorses that practice. I will say that again:

Biblical silence does not equal approval

The Bible was never written to cover every conceivable specifics in our lives, but to establish principles—godly principles—by which we should live our lives. Rather than looking at an undotted “i” and an uncrossed “t”, we should ask ourselves the question: does this action of mine bring glory to God? Does it promote the cause of Christ? Is my neighbor blessed and made better by it? etc
The homosexual perverts have a similar argument, that because Jesus said nothing about homosexuality, therefore he had nothing against the disgusting practice. Of course Jesus said nothing about smoking weed and taking cocaine either. But that does not mean He approved the practices. As in everything Jesus kept His teachings to what was relevant to His hearers, and He only addressed specific situations as they were brought to His attention. The woman taken in adultery was a case in point. Payment of government tax was another, etc.

I am sorry I have to tell you this: Mr. Artisanal Toad you are in error and need to repent of your false teachings.

Once anyone thinks they have a prerogative to change or “interpret” biblical sayings to fit their fancy, they are immediately in error and their doctrines musrt be rejected.

Please let us allow the Scriptures to tell us the whole story. We only need to read AND BELIEVE what is written. We do not have the authority to add, remove, or otherwise change anything therein, lest we bring ourselves under an eternal curse:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19

@JDGThe curse has the effect of a wife desiring to dominate a husband in the way that sin desired Cain, and then a husband ruling over a wife in an unloving, un-Christ like manner.

You are only partially correct and you make the same mistake theologians have made for almost a millennium. The word “desire” is only used two other times outside of Genesis 3:16, once in Genesis 4:7, as a desire to conquer and control; the other in the Song of Songs, verse 7:10 as a sexual desire. Theologians have argued back and forth which definition should be used in Genesis 3:16, but the truth is that it isn’t one or the other, it’s both.

“Yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

This is the origin of female hypergamy. The reason a woman shit tests a man is if she’s attracted she starts off with a desire to conquer and control him. If she can she will and in doing so she will determine that he is NOT fit to rule over her and her attraction to him will die immediately. However, if the guy passes her shit tests with flying colors then that desire to conquer and control changes to a sexual desire. Anybody who knows game knows this to be true. “He shall rule over you” also plays a part because a woman never stops shit testing a guy. Married or LTR, it doesn’t matter. And if she’s married and her husband goes beta and drops too much in value, about the time a higher-value man more fit to rule her comes along, she’s probably going to bang him and later she’ll divorce her husband if she thinks she can hang onto the higher value guy. Happens all the time. Branch-swinging monkeys always have another branch in sight if not in their grasp when they let go of the first branch.

The “rule over you” and desire to be ruled is hardwired into the women’s psyche by the curse. I can state factually on the basis of both observation and experience that women love being dominated by an attractive and masculine man they are highly attracted to. They like being ordered around, they like being dominated and most of them even enjoy being spanked. Witness the 50+ million sales of Fifty Shades of Grey and try telling me I’m wrong. Every woman has an attraction point, some higher than others, but if a woman’s attraction point is triggered she will behave like a raging slut with the man that’s attracted her. As has been said before, they’ll drive hundreds of miles, crawl through windows and hide in closets for hours just to have sex with the guy that’s triggered their attraction. They’ll do it in an empty office at the company party they came to with their husband. They’ll ditch their boyfriend in a club for a few minutes and do it in a car in the parking lot. You name it, they’ll do it for the man that’s triggered their attraction point. Women can’t articulate it and don’t understand it but when it happens they’ll expect other women to cover for them and other women will, even if they don’t approve, because they know in the back of their minds that it could be them one day.

Women who are NOT attracted to their husbands are offended if he attempts to dominate them, order them around or even, God forbid, discipline them. They’ll jump right into a threesome and love it if Brad Pitt was yanking their hair and smacking their ass while they ripped their clothes off, but the very next day they’ll scream “ADULTERY” if they catch their husband looking at porn. The alpha male can smirk and swat them on the ass and they’ll smile while they enjoy the gina-tingles. The unattractive beta male does the same thing and they’re dialing 911 or filing a sexual harassment complaint so fast it makes his head spin. Why? Because they have determined the alpha is fit to rule them, they’re attracted to that and when he exercises his prerogatives they find it exciting. OTOH, they have determined the beta is not fit to rule them, he repulses them and if he attempts to exercise the prerogatives of an alpha with *them* it causes them to be highly offended. “How dare he do that!”

That’s what the curse has given us.

Oh, and if you’re one of those who think Christ removed the curse, go visit a maternity ward and see if you can find women having babies without pain. Can’t wait to hear the field report.

@DaveBiblical silence does not equal approval

I didn’t say it does. In fact, all I did was point out that the Apostle Paul said silence in the law (the lack of a prohibition) meant there is no transgression and no sin imputed. No prohibition (silence) = no sin.

It is certainly possible to do something that isn’t a sin (like eating a steaming pile of dogshit) but that doesn’t mean it’s wise… until you’re literally about to starve to death, so weak you can hardly move and some dog decides to take a dump next to you. I can play the game of taking things to the point of absurdity too, so let’s stick to basics.

The Bible was never written to cover every conceivable specifics in our lives, but to establish principles—godly principles—by which we should live our lives. Rather than looking at an undotted “i” and an uncrossed “t”, we should ask ourselves the question: does this action of mine bring glory to God? Does it promote the cause of Christ? Is my neighbor blessed and made better by it? etc

I agree with that 100% but I’ll also point out that the backbone of your “Godly principles” is the Law, which establishes what is and is not sin. “Principles” are the guidelines we use in those areas in which we were left with freedom to choose because God did not choose to regulate that area, and governing “principles” are *personal* not general. The problem with this is when you get somebody like Bill Gothard, who took the whole “principles” thing and stretched it to the point of absurdity. I’ll be the first to admit that he teaches a lot of good stuff (I’ve attended both the basic and advanced seminars), but if one backs up and looks at the final product, it’s extremely legalistic and some of it isn’t even Scriptural. One example of that is his headship teaching, which completely ignores the Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man shall leave his mother and father…” and says that a man is always under the authority of his parents, even after he gets married. So, yeah, your “godly principles” is kind of a trigger phrase, LOL.

I’m willing to bet that according to your godly principles, you’d tell me that it NEVER brings glory to God to kill a government official and his girlfriend because they were violating God’s Law. If you did tell me that, I’d suggest you go read Numbers 25 and take a look at what God said after Phineas killed Zimri, one of the chief princes of the tribe of Simeon, and Cozbi, a Middianite princess. He didn’t just get praise, God created an everlasting priesthood in his name.

You’d probably be one of those men who’d say “It is never right and it never brings glory to Christ to have sex with a woman you’re not married to.” I’d say that’s great, it’s your opinion but you’re not God and you don’t have the authority to make blanket pronouncements about what is right and what brings glory to Christ if God chose to make that an area in which He gave us freedom to decide. Because the whole issue of freedom in Christ never seems to make into the list of “godly principles.”

Mr. Artisanal Toad you are in error and need to repent of your false teachings.

The funny part is I haven’t even really mentioned any of the stuff that normally drives churchians like you stark raving mad, but just like with wormtongue, you claim I’m a false teacher, so chapter and verse or it didn’t happen. But, keep reading and let’s see where godly principles can take us.

@Boxer [ I hereby dedicate what follows to you. Enjoy.]

Dave! Check this out! I’ve been thinking about what you said about godly principles, and look at what I found: The godly principle of firsts, which says that when God chooses to list something first we should pay attention because it’s important. So, look at Exodus 21. After God gave the people the 10 commandments, the very first of the Laws, Statutes and Ordinances He gave the people was the Law of the Bondservant. And look at what happened to that. Spiritual significance? Off the scale, which seriously *proves* the godly principle of firsts.

What can we do with this firsts thing? We should call it the “Godly Principle of Firsts” and then make a list of firsts. Look at the first command God gave to mankind: “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.” How many kids have you got Dave? I’m sorry to say that I only managed 7 before the wife went feral and conspired with the doctor to have her tubes tied without telling me. I feel really bad about that and since polygyny is a perfectly acceptable marriage as far as God’s concerned, my desire to be obedient to God means that’s the most effective way of obeying God by being fruitful.

And look at this: Isaiah 4:1-2 says “Seven women will take hold of one man in that day, saying ‘we will wear our own clothes and eat our own bread, only give us your name and take away our reproach!’ And in that day the branch of the Lord will be beautiful.” Look at that! Israel is the root, Christ is the true vine and the church is the branch that was grafted in, so this is obviously an end-times verse and we all want Christ to come back, so it’s obvious that men should get seven wives! Jacob went from no wives to 2 wives and 2 concubines in the space of 2 weeks, and he pretty much fathered the nation of Israel, so with this principle each guy could have his own tribe!

Everyone should do this! It’s obvious, because God commanded us to be fruitful and multiply, God gave us His example of having 2 wives (Jeremiah 31:31-32), Jacob created the nation of Israel with his 4 wives and in the end times guys will have 7 wives! Dave! This is a Biblical principle to REALLY get behind. The “Be fruitful and multiply” is GOD’s FIRST COMMAND to all of mankind and all you’d need to really put the baby-makers in business is an industrial supply of Cialis! And wives! Wait, wait, I see a problem here, Dave. The women aren’t attracted to white knights, they want Alphas… but hang on… it’s coming to me… YES! I have a PLAN, Dave.

All you have to do is start a cult based on “Godly Principles” instead of God’s Word and then cherry-pick a bunch of submissive followers out of the Gothardites. Bill is getting old and what with that lawsuit for sexual harassment, his people are already uncomfortable and they’d be a nice fit because they’ve already bought into the whole cult of Biblical Principles so switching them from “Biblical Principles” to “Godly Principles” should be pretty easy. You’ve already got the whole polygyny principle as a requirement to obey the be fruitful and multiply command and that’s REALLY important because of the Godly Principle of Firsts. Now all you have to do is come up with multiple wives for you and all the rest of the beta schmucks you’ll be recruiting, but relax Dave, I have a plan for this too.

Now, like I said, women aren’t attracted to white knights like you, so you have to come up with a submission principle that gets the fathers to willingly marry off their daughters to older men like you when the girls are really young and are still intimidated enough to go along with it. Call it the “Submission to Godly Headship Principle” that says “everyone has to submit to those in authority over them.” The girls have to be married off young because, let’s face it, we both know that if you let the girls grow into adults they’ll tell you exactly where you can stick the idea of being married off to some middle-aged beta white knight and we don’t want that, do we Dave.

This is so great Dave! With fantastic godly principles like the Godly Principle of Firsts, the command to be fruitful and multiply, the godly principle of emulating God by having multiple wives and the Submission to Godly Headship Principle, we’ll be getting the girls married off when they’re young and still virgins and pure, I mean.. Dave, what could possibly go wrong? Think of all the glory you’d be bringing to Christ as you’re being fruitful and multiplying like a rabbit to the point you can’t even remember your kids names. All because of godly principles!

But Dave, don’t listen to those guys that talk about God’s Law and quote a lot of Scripture, they totally kill the whole “godly principles” vibe. They’re the guys that would tell you that while it’s OK for a man to have more than one wife, the guy has to be masculine and attractive enough to get the adult women to want to do polygyny of their own free will and we both know not many guys can pull that off and keep the wives happy. Beware of those guys Dave, they’re false teachers. If God hadn’t meant for all men to have multiple wives He never would have commanded us to be fruitful and multiply and He’d have stuck to one wife! Those guys may be Scripturally correct with the girl-girl sex thing not being a sin, but NEVER talk about stuff like that and especially don’t ever talk about how old your wives are. That’s private.

When you get guys quoting the Bible about that stuff you’re doing, whatever you do, DON’T argue Scripture with them because these guys have been studying for years and they KNOW the Bible. The only way to deal with them is to ignore their Bible quotes and throw “godly principles” at them. You already know how to do it, just take a couple of verses out of context and whip up a godly principle on the spot, throw it out there, call them false teachers, tell them they need to repent and walk away! If you really get put on the spot, hey, who can argue with stuff like headship, submission, being fruitful and the principle of firsts? Scripture is FILLED with with that stuff! Just remember to stick to principle stuff. Most Christians don’t study the Bible and they don’t want to. Let the Bible guys go on and on quoting Scripture and everyone else will get bored because they don’t want to hear it. It’s too complicated. When they wind down and you fire back with something simple that sounds good, everybody will love you!

It works every time, you don’t have to put in the time studying the Bible just to learn they’re right and it gives you more time with your little girls, errm… I mean… wives. What could possibly be better than godly principles?

You’d probably be one of those men who’d say “It is never right and it never brings glory to Christ to have sex with a woman you’re not married to.” I’d say that’s great, it’s your opinion but you’re not God and you don’t have the authority to make blanket pronouncements about what is right and what brings glory to Christ if God chose to make that an area in which He gave us freedom to decide. Because the whole issue of freedom in Christ never seems to make into the list of “godly principles.”

So you are advocating fornication as an area God gave us freedom to decide? Really? Man, are you self deceived.
Look, it is obvious to me that you do not have the Spirit of Christ, or at the least, you do not have His teachings. The Holy Spirit has a way of teaching the child of God even those truths they never heard anyone preached, and which they never read from any book. He is the One who guides us into all truth, even without any human intermediary. The way you understand the Scriptures, and the way you peddle your doctrines, made it abundantly clear to me that you are not being taught by the Holy Spirit. Your expositions and conclusions are in the fringe category. You do not speak “according to this word”.
I urge you to seek God’s light; let Him teach you what he already wrote in His words, and humble yourself before Him so you can receive His teachings. What you currently teach is heresy.

To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. Isaiah 8:20

You are only partially correct and you make the same mistake theologians have made for almost a millennium.

And now your here to set us all straight. Is that it?

Theologians have argued back and forth which definition should be used in Genesis 3:16, but the truth is that it isn’t one or the other, it’s both.

So you say, yet your review on the nature of women is explained just as well with this:
“The curse has the effect of a wife desiring to dominate a husband in the way that sin desired Cain, and then a husband ruling over a wife in an unloving, un-Christ like manner. ”

Your understanding puts all the blame on the man for not passing the woman’s tests (which are an act of rebellion – motivated by hypergamy – in the first place).

…
“Yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

This is the origin of female hypergamy.

So you argue FOR an egalitarian position before the fall, which is what feminist church attenders argue for. Ironically they use the very argument you quoted “and if you’re one of those who think Christ removed the curse” to support this unbiblical claim.

Be it from the curse, a sinful nature, or both, female hypergamy is a by product of the fall. It is a part of the FALLEN condition of women. Egalitarianism is not biblical. Not before or after the fall. The woman is to submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ. This is the correct way.

@feministhaterQuestion. If God gives a command and that command is fulfilled, what happens?

Who said it was fulfilled? “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.” We’ve got a lot of people, but the earth isn’t filled yet.

Is it wrong for me to pronounce her name as ‘Nag Me’?”

If it is, you’ve got lots and lots of company in being wrong…

@JDGAnd now your here to set us all straight. Is that it?

Feel free to refute what I said. Please, bring forth your evidence, preferably on-point passages from the Bible, but in the case of empirical observations of hypergamy I’ll accept sources like Rollo and Heartiste, although we obviously disagree on the source of hypergamy (they take an evolutionary POV, I take a Scriptural POV). I’m free to make my argument, you’re free to refute it if you can. Failing that, we can even agree to disagree and that’s the nature of public discourse when we discuss the issues instead of attacking each other. I prefer discussions of issues, even if they get heated, because iron does not sharpen iron without hammering and the process tends to throw a few sparks. It goes without saying that women don’t understand that.

your review on the nature of women is explained just as well with this:

“The curse has the effect of a wife desiring to dominate a husband in the way that sin desired Cain, and then a husband ruling over a wife in an unloving, un-Christ like manner. ”

It appears you *assume* that masculine dominance is “un-Christlike” but you didn’t define what said “un-Christlike” behavior you’re referring to. You also ignored the point I made about women *desiring* to be dominated by men they are highly attracted to, which I believe to be a reflection of the reality that the curse is still very much alive.

Reflect on Revelation 3:19, in which Christ said “Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent.” A rebuke is oral but chastening is done with a rod. If Christ is saying that one expression of His love is to hold His church accountable, both rebuking and chastening those who do not repent, how could it be said to be unloving if a man did the same thing with a woman he loves when he has been commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church? I don’t want to run afoul of Dalrocks prohibition of discussing physical discipline of wives, so in the abstract, how is it a curse if God wired women with a desire to be dominated (ruled over) unless it turns out that it’s extremely difficult to find a guy she truly wants to dominate her and her reaction to being forced to submit to a man she is not attracted to causes her to rebel, which causes him to enforce his will on her?

Your understanding puts all the blame on the man for not passing the woman’s tests (which are an act of rebellion – motivated by hypergamy – in the first place).

I can agree in part but disagree in part. Yes, it’s the man’s fault for not passing the shit tests, because a man letting himself go beta and failing to maintain his frame is no different from a woman letting herself go and getting fat. I don’t agree that shit tests are an act of rebellion. God cursed women and the hypergamy is a result of that curse and is now the nature of women. It’s just the way they are and men should have the wisdom to understand that… and in fact, husbands are commanded to do so: “husbands, live with your wives in an understanding manner, as with a weaker vessel” 1st Peter 3:7. To call hypergamy rebellion on the part of women is to say they have a choice (agency) in this respect. If it was a choice, it wouldn’t be a curse. They don’t have a choice and thus when it comes to hypergamy, AWALT. Even the most Godly women I know still shit test their husbands and they don’t even realize they’re doing it.

Be it from the curse, a sinful nature, or both, female hypergamy is a by product of the fall. It is a part of the FALLEN condition of women. Egalitarianism is not biblical. Not before or after the fall. The woman is to submit to her husband as the Church submits to Christ. This is the correct way.

You’re making a chicken-egg argument and I’m saying it doesn’t matter. Ephesians 5:22-24 and 1st Peter 3:1 (just to cite 2) both point back to Genesis 3:16, which established the man as the absolute authority over the woman. Feminists can claim anything they want (and generally do), but the first point is we don’t know what kind of marriage Adam and Eve had prior to the fall and lacking sin, it *could* have been egalitarian, we just don’t know. Scripture is silent on that and for you to say “egalitarianism was not “biblical” before the fall is rather presumptuous given that you have *zero* information on that, so be careful or Dave is going to jump all over that and turn it into a godly principle. He’s already hitting it hard and I’ll discuss that with him below.

The second point is if feminists want to claim Adam and Eve had an egalitarian marriage prior to the fall, let them and get them to trumpet it from the rooftops. Why? Because “prior to the fall” means they must acknowledge the fall and the curse, which means they are admitting that egalitarian marriage is no longer possible because they have been cursed. All of them. If there’s any objection to that, claiming that the curse is lifted in Christ, refer them to the maternity ward.

I think we pretty much agree, this is just quibbling over semantics.

@DaveSo you are advocating fornication as an area God gave us freedom to decide? Really? Man, are you self deceived.

Dave, first, I did not advocate fornication. If you read *carefully* you should notice that I didn’t *advocate* anything. What I actually said was:

“you don’t have the authority to make blanket pronouncements about what is right and what brings glory to Christ if God chose to make that an area in which He gave us freedom to decide.”

You also appear to have a serious problem understanding the definitions of the words you’re using. “Fornication” is an English word that is often used as the English translation of the Greek word “porneia” and we know that “porneia” (which is better translated as “sexual immorality” is a sin.

Are you with me so far, Dave? Because this isn’t a “godly principle” thing, this is God’s Law we’re talking about and you cannot understand what the Law says until you understand the definitions of the terms used. Likewise, you can’t understand what the NT is saying because the definitions of words like “Lust” and “Adultery” and “Sexual Immorality” and even “Sodomy” are all defined based on the Law. You’d know that if you’d read Romans 4:15 and 5:13, which I’ve cited *repeatedly* so far. Unfortunately, it’s obvious you don’t know what “fornication” means. As I discussed in this comment about definitions:

Sexual immorality and/or Fornication. These two words are the most commonly used to translate the Greek word “Porneia.” We know “porneia” is a sin and Romans 4:15 and 5:13 (combined, and I’m paraphrasing) say sin is in the world, but where there is no Law there is no transgression and sin is not imputed. The clear meaning is those things prohibited/condemned in the Law are sin and if something isn’t prohibited/condemned in the Law it isn’t sin. Therefore, because “porneia” refers to sinful behavior it can only consist of those things prohibited in the Law.

Sexual immorality and/or Fornication are defined in the law as sodomy, bestiality, adultery, incest, marrying a mother-daughter or grandmother-granddaughter combination, having intercourse with your wife while she’s on her period or having intercourse with your wife during the proscribed period after the birth of a child (this list isn’t exhaustive). Because adultery can be narrowly defined as a physical act of intercourse, there are other actions a wife might take that give to another man that which properly belongs only to her husband, thus the “emotional affair” or kissing/petting that does not go as far as intercourse cannot be classified as adultery but do fall within the bounds of sexual immorality.

Please refer to my comment on Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 earlier in this thread that discusses what most Christians would refer to as premarital sex. As i pointed out, according to the Law, it is not a sin because there is no specific prohibition or condemnation of such behavior. The issue of sin with respect to premarital sex (for Christians, if there is one) comes with Romans 14:23 and James 4:17. If a man or woman is having sex outside of marriage and it is not of faith (he/she believes it to be wrong and does it anyway) they are in sin. If the man or woman know the right thing to do is wait until they marry and they decide not to wait, that is sin to them as well. However, as with eating meat sacrificed to idols, the sin in this case is the sin of violating the conscience (interaction between man and Holy Spirit), not the physical act.

I’m not coming down on you Dave, just about everyone has problems with the definitions thing because so few study seriously, but I’m glad to help out here because I know that underneath all that error you’re a sincere guy. So don’t get any hard feelings here Dave, I’m just trying to help. I must admit, though, just when I thought we’d plumbed your depth, you pull a hat trick:

The Holy Spirit has a way of teaching the child of God even those truths they never heard anyone preached, and which they never read from any book.

Dave, you’re amazing. I thought you were doing good with the godly principles thing, but you just hit a home run! I mean, this is just SO great! Yes! Have a godly principle that says the Holy Spirit will teach the truth (your truth) without hearing preaching and without any study of the Word and you’ve got them. They can sit around navel-gazing and the Holy Spirit will teach them “truths” that you’ve already suggested and then you can give them godly principles that lead them anywhere you want to take them. I honestly didn’t think you had it in you, but obviously you have what it takes to start your own cult.

I’m telling you Dave, this is a solid foundation for a fantastic cult already and it’s only been, what- 24 hours? A godly principle that says people don’t need to listen to preaching and don’t need to study the Bible because the Holy Spirit will teach the truth without the need for any of that… Dave, that’s just totally amazing! Obviously you completely understand people just want to be led and don’t want to do hard work on anything. Your approach positions you as a “prophet” that leads them out of churchianity to a brand new cult (“It’s New! Exciting! Easy!) in which they are led with feel-good godly principles and relieved of even having to carry a Bible to the cult meetings. I am truly, truly impressed and I can’t wait to see how you’ll keep developing this.

And Dave, let me know when you get this cult started, because I have several friends (theology professors with a strong interest in sociology) that would love to study the process and watch it develop. They feel bad because they completely missed out on Jim Jones and David Koresh and they really need to publish (that’s reality in academia- publish or perish) so please keep us informed of how things are going. I’ll bet you’ve already got your eye on a couple of 14 year-olds so I’m sure you’ll be getting started soon. Please, just let me know when and where.

PS. Dave, I was talking about your project with some of the guys (I hope you don’t mind) and one of them was kind of wondering if you could come up with a godly principle for weekly blowjobs. You know, if you have time. I know you’re busy and all, but if you think about it, a godly principle for blowjobs would really help with recruiting- especially with the polygyny principle in play. After all, how many betas even get blowjobs, much less blowjobs from a couple of young girls… I mean wives… at the same time?

PPS. Oh, I almost forgot. I’ve got a couple of real fundies on my case because of some comments I made and I just found out they’re going to DOX me. So, when you hear a bunch of crazy stuff about a guy named “Jonathan Swift” don’t believe anything they say because that’s me they’re talking about. They’re all just such little people that can’t handle big ideas. Not like you, Dave, it’s like these guys are only 5 inches tall.

I have yet to see the verse in the New Testament which allows married men to fuck/marry women not their (first) wives. As Lyn87 pointed out, many months ago, there is no such allowance, and the colorful interpretations allowing polygamy which occasionally erupt here are entertaining, but not supported by the text. Moreover, there is no Islamic-style “anything not expressly forbidden is permitted” clause in Christian law either. The fact that Rav Saul / St. Paul didn’t come out and damn anyone for polygamy doesn’t mean it’s allowed.

That aside, if you and others want to join my trashy cousins in plural marriage, be my guest. It’s a miserable way for a man to live, but ultimately I’m not going to stop anyone who wants to be henpecked by multiple women for the rest of his life.

Who said it was fulfilled? “Be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.” We’ve got a lot of people, but the earth isn’t filled yet.

We have pretty much inhabited every corner of the world. You are clutching at straws. We have dominion over the Earth, we’ve subdued every animal. There is no more to be done.

We have been fruitful, with have multiplied, trying to do more is causing wide spread chaos, destruction and destitution. Those who do not feel called to marry, do not need to get married. It is not a command.

I made no such assumption. Masculine dominance is NOT un-Christlike behavior. Unloving dominance IS un-Christ like behavior.

but you didn’t define what said “un-Christlike” behavior you’re referring to.

Sometimes I forget that people cannot read my mind. Un-Christ like behavior can be masculine, effeminate, or feminine. It can be dominate or submissive. With any of these characteristics it would be motivated by selfishness rather than love.

You also ignored the point I made about women *desiring* to be dominated by men they are highly attracted to, which I believe to be a reflection of the reality that the curse is still very much alive.

I didn’t ignore it. I consider it inconsistent and thus irrelevant. Though women often do, they don’t ALWAYS desire to be dominated by men they are attracted to. Furthermore, what they consider attractive isn’t consistent even in a the same man over time.

If what you say is true, then why do baby mamas repeatedly kick their thug fornication partners to the curb? Why don’t they just continue to submit to them when things don’t go their way? Why does the Bible repeat so many times “Wives obey, wives submit”, even in a culture where husbands were held in high esteem?

What IS consistent is that women try to dominate their men, even the ones they are attracted to. They will manipulate, threaten, bully, whine, cry or what ever else they can to control a given situation and / or get their way.

The curse is very much in play, but “women *desiring* to be dominated by men they are highly attracted to” isn’t necessarily a part of it. Their sinful condition is more likely the reason for this.

Reflect on Revelation 3:19, in which Christ said “Those whom I love I rebuke and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent.” A rebuke is oral but chastening is done with a rod. If Christ is saying that one expression of His love is to hold His church accountable, both rebuking and chastening those who do not repent, how could it be said to be unloving if a man did the same thing with a woman he loves when he has been commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church?

Your reading your own stuff into what I wrote. I’m probably one of the few guys here that somewhat agrees with you about chastening (think The Quite Man or McLintock).

… how is it a curse if God wired women with a desire to be dominated (ruled over) unless it turns out that it’s extremely difficult to find a guy she truly wants to dominate her and her reaction to being forced to submit to a man she is not attracted to causes her to rebel, which causes him to enforce his will on her?

Here is the problem. You are assuming women are cursed with the desire to be dominated, and doing so without the point by point scripture you want from me. The Bible doesn’t say “Your desire shall be for highly attractive men.” It says “Your desire shall be for your husband.” Try looking at the curse as a desire to dominate (as the word is used in reference to sin desiring Cain). It makes more sense.

Yes, it’s the man’s fault for not passing the shit tests, because a man letting himself go beta and failing to maintain his frame is no different from a woman letting herself go and getting fat. I don’t agree that shit tests are an act of rebellion.

Well you can blame the man for the woman’s sin if you want. Obviously I disagree with your view on this. The Bible does not command men to maintain their frame. It does command women to submit to their husbands.

God cursed women and the hypergamy is a result of that curse and is now the nature of women.

Gen 3:16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

We see that pain in childbearing is multiplied, and that the woman desires her husband. Not “You are cursed with hypergamy.”

Gen 4:7 (sin desires Cain) more closely mirrors Gen 3:16, but even if the meaning in SoS 7:10 is used, or somehow both meanings are used at the same time, it does not necessarily follow that hypergamy is a result of the curse (unless you can support the argument that “husband” somehow equates to “attractive men”).

It’s just the way they are and men should have the wisdom to understand that… and in fact, husbands are commanded to do so: “husbands, live with your wives in an understanding manner, as with a weaker vessel” 1st Peter 3:7.

You are interjecting your own understanding of what 1st Peter 3:7 is saying. “Living in an understanding way” does not translate to “it’s your fault when your wife rebels – because of frame and hypergamy.” Thats pretty much one of the lies that are taught in many a church except that hypergamy is replaced with “if you were leading her correctly she would follow”, which also is hogwash.

To call hypergamy rebellion on the part of women is to say they have a choice (agency) in this respect. If it was a choice, it wouldn’t be a curse.

If behavior resulting from effects of the curse is not to be accounted for, then I suppose men shouldn’t be accountable for lashing out in pain since the result of the curse that they inherited from Adam is: “cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;”

However, this sounds more like the “born a homosexual” argument than anything else. It’s a bad argument. “I was born that way” is never an excuse for bad behavior, even when it is true.

They don’t have a choice and thus when it comes to hypergamy, AWALT. Even the most Godly women I know still shit test their husbands and they don’t even realize they’re doing it.

While I disagree that they don’t even realize it (especially after being confronted about it), it doesn’t matter if the realize it or not. When they are tempted to argue because of hypergamy, they have a choice. When they are tempted to manipulate because of hypergamy, they have a choice. When they are tempted to stray because of hypergamy, they have a choice. In each circumstance they can follow temptation or follow Christ and do right by their husbands.

… but the first point is we don’t know what kind of marriage Adam and Eve had prior to the fall and lacking sin, it *could* have been egalitarian, we just don’t know. Scripture is silent on that and for you to say “egalitarianism was not “biblical” before the fall is rather presumptuous given that you have *zero* information on that …

Zero information?

Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;

Adam was cursed for listening to the voice of his wife. He did this BEFORE the fall and it was counted as something he should NOT have done.

1 Cor 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.
1 Cor 11 7 For a man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. 9 Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10 That is why a wife ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.

Here we can easily see that from the beginning God had a created order and a flow of authority (God => Christ => Man => Wife). Egalitarianism has never been a part of God’s plan.

Two words of caution for those following AT’s logic: (which I think is more right than wrong)

1. Consider the concept of This versus Not This (mutually exclusive): Where God says, in his word, “This Only” – we can rightly assume that every occurance of “Not This” is wrong in God’s eyes. We don’t need each and every instance of “Not This” to be listed in the Bible in a “Do Not Do” list. We only need one instance of “This Only”. Adam and Eve gained for themselves and their offspring (us) the ability to distinguish between good and evil, between “This” and “Not This”. Claiming that, “if it is not prohibited in the Bible, it is not a sin (or, it is OK for us to do)” is a very dangerous argument. Where God says “This Only” in his word, logic requires us to consider that every instance of “Not This” does not meet with God’s approval. Of course this is a theoretical argument. I admit the difficulty there is in getting men to agree on anywhere that God says “This Only” in his word. But hopefully you get the logic of the point I am making. We cannot logically say that it is OK to do something just because the Bible does not tell us to abstain from doing it. We must measure our contemplated behavior against the “This Only” things the Bible does list. If God approves of sexual activity only inside of a union he creates, of which he says “let not man put assunder”, then we can rightly conclude that no sexual activity that occurs outside of that union meets with God’s approval. Problem is, it is not clearly defined anywhere what creates a union of which God says “let not man put assunder”.

2. In Genesis It says that the ground was cursed because of Adam’s disobedience to God. It does not actually say that God cursed the ground. And Genesis does not say that God cursed Adam and Eve. If you say that we can assume that God cursed Adam and Eve, even though the Bible doesn’t actually state this, then we must accept that we can assume other things as well in the Bible, even tho the Bible doesn’t actually state what we are assuming. Specific to this discussion, we can assuming things such as:

a. The requirements placed on men in the New Testament regarding sexual behavior and divorce apply equally to women, even tho the Bible doesn’t specifically state that they do. And we can likewise assume that the requirements placed on women in the New Testament regarding sexual behavior and divorce apply equally to men, even tho the Bible doesn’t specifically state that they do.

b. What was required of men we can assume was also required of women, even though the Bible doesn’t actually state this. What was required of women we can assume was also required of men, even though the Bible doesn’t actually state this.

I’m afraid that this Point 2 is what really trips up AT’s logic, and thus, his entire argument. He insists that we accept certain things where the Bible plainly does not state them (God cursed Eve, and these problems follow from that curse), yet says we should not accept that things said about one sex were intended to be applied to the other sex as well. AT, you can’t have it both ways. Either drop the insistance that women’s behavior follows from Eve being curse (the Bible nowhere says that Eve was cursed, so we must assume this), or drop the insistance that men are free to do what is prohibited to women (I can assume that men are bound by the same restrictions placed on women regarding divorce and marriage, just as you can assume that Eve was cursed).

Thank you for your response. It’s becoming clear what we don’t agree on but I think the good news is most of it comes down to definitions. Just like you forgetting that people can’t read your mind, I often forget that my definitions for things may not agree with the definition others have for the same thing and thus confusion results. I will respond shortly.

@Boxer

I wasn’t replying to anything you said, just that given our past interaction (which I also enjoy) I thought you would appreciate it.

I have yet to see the verse in the New Testament which allows married men to fuck/marry women not their (first) wives.

“All things are lawful but not all things are beneficial” is about as close as you’ll come to “permission” in that respect, but the statement is irrelevant because the Bible is both positive and negative in nature. We are commanded to do certain things and commanded not to do certain things. The area in the middle, as long as we are not doing that which is forbidden and as long as we are doing that which we are commanded to do is left up to us to decide for ourselves. This requires wisdom but it also takes into account that everyone is at least a little different and our desires in what we want out of life shape God’s will for our lives.

There are generally two philosophies on this. One is “That which is not prohibited is permitted” and the other is “That which is not specifically permitted is prohibited.” The clear text of Scripture indicates the correct answer is the former, not the latter, with the injunction that we are to always seek wisdom.

As Lyn87 pointed out, many months ago, there is no such allowance, and the colorful interpretations allowing polygamy which occasionally erupt here are entertaining, but not supported by the text.

Lyn87 is incorrect (while I haven’t seen the comment, if your characterization is correct it indicates he is of the “that which is not specifically permitted is forbidden” kind of guy- in error) because the fact that God regulated polygyny (just as He regulated farming) indicates a right to choose polygyny if the individual desires. It is no different from a man choosing to be a farmer. I would think the fact God doesn’t have a problem with men banging prostitutes (no prohibition in the Law), which is supported by the story of Samson (he did not violate his Nazerite vow- which required that he remain clean and holy -even though he was using prostitutes), would be far more distressing than the fact that God has no problem with men having more than one wife.

The fact the Apostle Paul placed a special restriction on Christians, forbidding the use of prostitutes, along with the special restriction Christ placed on the union of married believers, forbidding them to divorce, should speak loudly in light of the fact no such restriction was placed on Christians with respect to polygyny. In other words, the fact that God chose to restrict Christians from a few things they had the right to do under the Law (using prostitutes and divorcing their wives) means God chose NOT to place any further restrictions on Christians. I should also point out the right to do something does not carry with it a responsibility to do it, a good example is divorce. Under the Law a man has the right to divorce his wife for porneia. Yet, if the husband finds his wife to be sexually immoral, he is not under any obligation to divorce her. He can if he wants to but isn’t required to (think Joseph and Mary). So, with that, let’s take a look at the morality of polygyny.

God does not regulate sin (yet He regulated polygyny with both requirements and prohibitions)
God does not condone sin (yet He took credit for giving David multiple wives- 2nd Samuel 12:8)
God does not command sin (yet He commanded the levirate marriage- Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)

It is not a “colorful interpretation” to say that God does not regulate, condone, command or participate in sin, because sin is something God forbids and condemns. He is Holy and Righteous and cannot do otherwise. To say polygyny is immoral, unrighteous or otherwise a sin is to say that God regulates, condones, commands and participates in sin. That’s blasphemy.

Moreover, there is no Islamic-style “anything not expressly forbidden is permitted” clause in Christian law either.

I’m not going to quibble over the interpretation of a few passages I can think of, but there doesn’t have to be such a clause. Look at all the “do not judge” commandments, which are completely incompatible with anything other than a “anything not expressly forbidden is permitted” paradigm.

The fact that Rav Saul / St. Paul didn’t come out and damn anyone for polygamy doesn’t mean it’s allowed.

The Bible does not differentiate between “polygyny” and “monogamy” but simply refers to marriage. To say such an arrangement is not allowed is to usurp/limit the authority of the man to initiate marriage (Genesis 2:24) and violates the Law (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32) by subtracting from the Law (removes the regulations on polygyny) and adding to the Law (adding a prohibition). The Apostle Paul didn’t have anything to say about polygyny at all, just like he didn’t have anything to say about whether a man had one donkey or two, or even three. Paul didn’t condemn a man for purchasing several vineyards and didn’t restrict a man to only one vineyard, he didn’t mention it at all.

This reminds me somewhat of the Church of Christ division over the use of musical instruments, some of whom worship with music (nothing wrong with it) and others who use no music in their worship because there is no mention of music in the New Testament. Now, it must be said that the Church of Christ assemblies (without) produce some fine A Capella singers, but the fact they choose not to have music because the New Testament doesn’t mention it does not make them one iota more righteous than the Church of Christ assemblies (with). It’s the same with marriage.

However, this is also a good illustration of the central issue you brought up. The Church of Christ (without) are taking a “not specifically permitted is forbidden” approach and the Church of Christ (with) is taking the “not specifically forbidden is permitted” approach. Anyone can see the result, as well as the attitude of some on both sides of the debate, that those on the other side are “in sin” when any idiot can see that absolutely nothing in the Bible equates music with sin in any way.

—–

Boxer, I’ve given a lot of thought to the reasons why your descriptions of polygyny are so radically different from my observations and experiences. The only thing that makes sense is the attitude within the FLDS “community” that a man *should* have more than one wife as opposed to the idea that a man *may* have more than one wife results in a situation with the FLDS in which men wind up with more than one wife even though they are completely unqualified and unequipped to herd cats. When he fails to manage them, they take control and after that I can see how your observations of a special kind of hell on earth would be accurate. What follows are my impressions of the poly families I know.

Over 90% of the Christian guys I know who have more than one wife added at least one wife to an existing marriage, and that itself is proof he’s got what it takes to manage the situation. About 80% of them have two wives, another 15% have three wives and a few of them have four (they tend to be the oldest and it seems like with the older families the wives are responsible for adding wives). Not one of the families I know has wives that act in the manner you’ve described and I’ve seen some pretty amazing things as far as the wives are concerned. Every one of the husbands I’ve observed has tight polygyny game (master cat-herder status). The wives may have disagreements amongst themselves but they settle it themselves and regardless of whatever their disagreements might be, when they’re in public they stand together. Get several poly families together and the wives merge together into something that resembles a Spartan shield-wall.

Over the past few years I’ve been invited to a bunch of poly-family get-togethers (several different groups all have a get-together at least once a year), which are attended by monogamously married couples as well as singles. I’ve seen single women and mono-wives being bitchy/catty/obnoxious with the poly wives and watched poly wives from different families work together to draw them out and then cut them off at the knees, oftentimes so gently the women didn’t realize what had just happened until it was over. Anybody who knew what they were looking at could see the unspoken conversation as they decided who would respond and how, depending on what was said and the attitude of the woman who said it.

I’ve seen mono-wives (but never single women) be obnoxious and interrupt the men, only to have one of the poly husbands look her in the eye and say “Woman, men are speaking. Be silent. Stay if you can restrain yourself or go join the rest of the women, your choice, but men are speaking.” I have never seen a mono-married wife do anything other than shut up and take it when that happened, which sometimes caused their husband some heartburn when he realized if he’d said the same thing there would have been a hysterical emotional/violent response from his wife. And the poly wives and husbands would look at each other with the silent communication, the wives with a ‘that’s what you get for being stupid’ look and the husbands smirking with total amused mastery, which didn’t help the butt-hurt husband at all.

Poly-family get-togethers always means a lot of kids. LOTS of kids. Yet, I have never seen a father have to correct a child because any time a child got out of hand the wives were all over it if one of the older children didn’t deal with it first. Every single poly family I know homeschools (Robinson curriculum is very popular), only a few own a TV and lots of them maintain a no-sugar diet. Typical of any homeschooling group, the kids are bright, articulate and even the children as young as 6-7 can easily have a serious (and often extremely entertaining) conversation with adults. Most of the teenagers could give just about anybody on this blog a serious run for their money when it comes to knowledge of the Bible.

I’ve written before that the structure of a poly marriage makes the husband more dominant (alpha) and every poly husband I know could reasonably be called alpha. Some are naturally bull alphas, others may have started off beta and became alpha, but their kids get the benefit of growing up in a household in which the Moms demonstrate Biblical submission to their husband and their Dad is truly the Head of their house. Some of them know game and all of them are at least aware of the basics of game, and watching the teenage boys game the teenage girls is hilarious: The boys using amused mastery, agree and amplify, assuming the sale, qualification/disqualification, negs, massive “little sister” teasing game and endless compliance hoops on the girls. The girls respond with tight girl-game and massive teamwork (no doubt learned watching their mothers), tag-teaming the boys and refusing to allow any isolation. Kino wasn’t tolerated and the only escalation I ever saw achieve was frustration, especially with the parents always present.

The single guys and girls in their twenties were a different story. Guys tend to be working their asses off at either two jobs or a day job and starting a business on the side. The girls are already seriously thinking about marriage and if they go to college they do it living at home taking courses online. The guys displayed quiet confidence and were pretty aloof, spending a lot of time with the husbands/fathers asking questions and bouncing ideas off them. None of them want anything but a poly marriage and there is also a serious preference among the girls for a poly marriage. It wasn’t unusual to see a pair or a group of three unmarried women who went everywhere and did everything together. Unspoken was they’d already decided they were a package deal for the right guy. Unlike the teenagers, serious courting could and did occur.

Because of the books I’ve written, for those who know me there was always the running joke of “are you going to put *this* in one of your books?” I always shrugged and said “maybe, but I’d have to dress it up a bit to make it interesting” and then I’d make up stuff to embellish whatever they did/said until it was totally outrageous and ask them how that sounded, or should maybe I make a bit risque? They always loved it and some of those ladies can really blush.

The various families have different ways of dealing with the wives. Some families have a separate house for each wife. Some have everyone under a single roof, but different living areas for each wife and her kids. Others have the adults with their own bedrooms and all the kids (no matter who is the Mom) together in girls and boys dormitories. As far as sleeping arrangements, for some it’s nobody’s business but theirs. For others (the other end of the spectrum), they’ll look you in the eye and tell you “we didn’t get married to sleep alone.” A lot of the dynamic has to do with how the families came together and under what circumstances, but there’s a general understanding that every family has to find its own equilibrium.

That’s a brief summary of my observations with folks that are poly, many of whom I’ve interviewed extensively and most of whom I can call friends. All I can say is I’ve never seen a henpecked poly husband and again, I put it down to the observation that the FLDS wants polygyny to be the rule whereas for the people I know, they are the exception to the rule.

@RichardP2. In Genesis It says that the ground was cursed because of Adam’s disobedience to God. It does not actually say that God cursed the ground. And Genesis does not say that God cursed Adam and Eve. If you say that we can assume that God cursed Adam and Eve, even though the Bible doesn’t actually state this, then we must accept that we can assume other things as well in the Bible, even tho the Bible doesn’t actually state what we are assuming.

First, this: the Bible doesn’t actually state what we are assuming.

That depends on how we should be reading the text, which I address later. As to the assertion that the passage “does not actually say that God cursed the ground” the way I read it is as follows. From the NASB:

“cursed is the ground”. In the act of saying ‘cursed’ the ground was cursed, in the same way that when God said “Let there be light,” there was light. In Hebrew, that passage actually says “God commanded ‘light be’ and light was.” By the act of God speaking it, it was. Thus, when God said “cursed is the ground” the ground was cursed the moment He said it.

If you are asserting the ground was not cursed, I think that the requirement to work to get the ground to bring forth its produce and the fact we have plenty of thorns and thistles really puts a dent in your case, but perhaps you’re saying someone else cursed the ground? I can’t buy that either because the only ones there were the serpent, Adam, Eve and God, only God had the authority to curse the serpent, Eve and the ground; and the text is clear that it was a judicial proceeding and the individuals were punished by their judge (God) after they made their confessions.

a. The requirements placed on [men in the New Testament] regarding sexual behavior and divorce apply equally to women, even tho the Bible doesn’t specifically state that they do,/b.. And we can likewise assume that the requirements placed on women in the New Testament regarding sexual behavior and divorce apply equally to men, even tho the Bible doesn’t specifically state that they do.

This is demonstrably false, and I say that even after years of experience with your ability to make statements so nuanced that I’ve been given cause to wonder if you’re the James Kirk of nuance, going boldly where no man has gone before, or just rushing in where Angels fear to tread. I detailed the specifics of my answer to your assertion below, but the Bible very much specifically states that the requirements placed on women regarding sexual behavior and divorce do not apply equally to men and vice versa.

b. What was required of men we can assume was also required of women, even though the Bible doesn’t actually state this. What was required of women we can assume was also required of men, even though the Bible doesn’t actually state this.

This, likewise, is incorrect.

The authority structure that God ordained requires different things from men than from women and the Bible states that quite clearly, over and over again. Men are required to husband and father, to rule over their families. Women are required to submit and obey. Men are allowed to ask questions in the assembly, women are to be silent and ask their husbands at home. Men are to teach women but women are not to teach men. Women are to submit to their husbands in silence, even if their husbands are disobedient to the Word, while men are to hold their wives accountable and correct her if she is disobedient. The list goes on and on and it’s a result of a defined authority structure that places women in submission to men, which assigns them different roles with different responsibilities.

AT, you can’t have it both ways. Either drop the insistance that women’s behavior follows from Eve being curse (the Bible nowhere says that Eve was cursed, so we must assume this), or drop the insistance that men are free to do what is prohibited to women (I can assume that men are bound by the same restrictions placed on women regarding divorce and marriage, just as you can assume that Eve was cursed).

First I’ll deal with the issue of the curse, then I’ll deal with your assumption. I hold that women’s behavior does follow from Eve being cursed, specifically hypergamy, and I also reject the idea that Eve was *not* cursed. I suggest you examine Leviticus 26:14-39 and Deuteronomy 28:15-44 to get an idea of what curses are, but let’s look at the context of what happened.

You need to look at this judicially because this is a judicial procedure, a procedure that is *entirely* familiar to any parent. God knew what had happened and God knew Adam was hiding so He called out

“Adam, where are you?”

Adam answered God, saying “I heard the sound of Thee in the garden, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid myself.”

God then asked “Who told you you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?”

Adam responded and confessed, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”

God then turned to Eve and asked “What is this you have done?”

Eve answered and said “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”

Notice that the Lord did not question the serpent. He moved straight to judgment with Eve and the serpent:

Judicial Finding: “Because you have done this, Judgment: cursed are you more than all the other cattle, and more than every beast of the field; on your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life;l and I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head and you shall bruise him on the heel.”

God did not stop, but continued, saying to Eve:

“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; Yet your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”

God cursed both the serpent and Eve, based on Eve’s confession. Who was at fault? The serpent and Eve (the serpent for deceiving her, Eve for transgressing the command), but notice what Paul says in 1st Timothy 2:14: And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being quite deceived, fell into transgression.” Now, let’s look at Luke 12:47-48. “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few.” God is the same, yesterday, today and forever. Eve, along with Adam, was part of the Federal Headship of the earth, placed in authority over all of the earth and everything on it. The serpent was not, he was one of the cattle and beasts of the field. In keeping with Luke 12:47-48, because Eve was deceived by the serpent (no mens rhea on her part), instead of being punished with Adam, she was punished at a lower level with the serpent. God began His judgment of the serpent and Eve, saying “Because you have done this, cursed are you…” and I argue that the “you” includes both the serpent and Eve because both transgressed.

Then God turned to Adam, who had sinned in a different way than Eve because Adam was not deceived. Adam, as the Federal Head over all of earth, willfully sinned and did what God had commanded him not to do. Notice that when the serpent and Eve were punished, they received their punishment individually, but a punishment that was carried out to all generations. Adam, as the Federal Head who had willfully sinned, was not punished individually, instead, all of creation was cursed because of him. Again, Luke 12:47-48. God spoke and said to Adam:

Judicial Finding: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying ‘You shall not eat from it’;

Judgment: “cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you shall eat bread. til you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Regardless of what you call it, the facts speak plainly (to me at least) that God’s judgment on the serpent, Eve and Adam was a curse, not a punishment for sin. Notice that the curse is heritable, because the serpents still crawl on their belly, women still bring forth their children in pain and the ground still only yields its produce through toil and still brings forth thorns and thistles. Yet, God said that the sons shall not be punished for the sins of the fathers, yet a bastard shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord down to the 10th generation.

As to your assumption, that you “can assume that men are bound by the same restrictions placed on women regarding divorce and marriage” (and earlier you stated vice-versa) :

Richard, your assumption is incorrect and provably so. I suppose you can assume that pigs have wings and the moon is made of Stilton cheese if you want, but men and women are not equal regarding sexual morality, marriage and divorce. There are:

1. Some restrictions that bind women but not men: Men can have more than one wife at a time but women cannot have more than one husband at a time. A married man can have sex with a woman who is not his wife and not be in sin. A married woman who has sex with any man other than her husband commits adultery, a sin. Under the Law, non-Christian man has the right to divorce his wife for sexual immorality, a woman does not have the right to divorce her husband.

2. Some restrictions that bind men but not women: If a man lies with a man as with a woman, that is an abomination and a death penalty offense. Women, however commit no transgression nor is there any sin imputed regardless of what sexual activity they might engage in as girl-on-girl.

3. Some restrictions that bind men and women equally: Christian men and Christian women who are married to each other are both forbidden to divorce. If either a Christian man or a Christian woman who is married to an unbeliever and their unbelieving spouse leaves them, both are free (able to legally divorce the unbeliever) and the woman is able to marry another (the man already had that right).

This is by no means an exhaustive list, it’s just off the top of my head.

As long as Muslim men are raping women throughout Europe, and probably coming to the US, no one cares about the manosphere in any great mass. Too many other more pressing issues on the forefront.

1) It’s sad that feminists are being raped.
It’s sad that the populations of natural born citizens in western countries are in decline thanks to feminist ideas regarding families.
It’s sad that so many men have been emasculated to the point of no return thanks to feminist opinions regarding masculinity.
It’s sad that so many men have been divorced raped by women using feminist courts.
It’s sad that so many kids grow up with out their fathers because of feminist laws.
It’s sad that so many babies die in their mother’s wombs thanks to feminist priorities regarding human life.
Feminism is just sad.

2) It’s probably not coming to the US any time soon, or at least until the elites and their followers finally get their way and disarm the US populace.

3) No one cared about the manosphere before Europe began to reap the fruits of its labor. No one will care after the reaping is done.

4) To the feminist (ie: most people in the western world), even entertainment is more pressing than the problems men, even feminist men, are facing.

AT has cranked out so many new lies in an attempt to support his initial lies that walls of text are unavoidable.

“In order for you to understand the definition of sexual immorality you have to first take a look at Romans 4:15 and 5:13. Sin is in the world, but where there is no Law (check the Greek on that, it’s referring to the Mosaic Law) there is no transgression and there is no sin imputed.”

This is the basis of AT’s latest set of lies. It’s twisted scripture, taken out of context and interwoven with various other falsehoods which is going to take a while to unpack. I think that’s what he’s banking on.

Note how AT twists the implications of Romans 4:15 and 5:13 from “there is no sin imputed” aka people aren’t held accountable for that sin to “ONLY the stuff that’s prohibited in the Law is sin” later in the same post. Don’t worry if you don’t have the energy to find his post responding to me.

His more grievous errors are in twisting the scriptures in Romans out of their original context and meaning.

Here’s Romans 4:15 in its full context. Romans 4: 13-15,
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

In no way does this say or imply that the Law of Moses has to explicitly state all sins for them to be considered sins. It’s not saying that if there’s no specific sin mentioned in the law of Moses that it’s okay to engage in a given activity. It’s saying that Jesus Christ payed for our trespasses in accordance with the law and we now rely on Him for our salvation because salvation is impossible for us under the Law of Moses.

Here’s Romans 5:13 in its full context. Romans 5: 12-14,
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

At no point in this passage does it say or imply that an action is permitted or allowed just because it’s not specifically stated in the Law of Moses. In fact, it makes it clear sin preexisted the law and death was the result.

This is an outright lie. No law meaning Jesus Christ has paid that price for us and we are now saved. Reading the passages above makes it clear that they are about salvation through Jesus Christ and that it’s impossible for anyone to achieve salvation via the Law of Moses. So as long as people are under the law, it’s impossible for them to be saved.

This of course doesn’t mean that we are to disregard all the Law of Moses or that it’s completely obsolete and irrelevant. It just means Christians aren’t to hope in it for salvation or believe obeying it will give us salvation.

Romans 3: 27-31,
“Then what becomes of our boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? By a law of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law. Or is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Upholding the Law of Moses doesn’t mean being under it.

AT twisted some scripture regarding Samson. This isn’t directly relevant to the other topics. But I still want to expose the deceit in it.

“You may want to look closely at Samson, who did not violate his Nazerite vow by having sex with prostitutes (Judges 16:1-3) because the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him when he did so and did not depart from him until he violated his Nazerite vow by having his hair cut. You might want to take a look at the requirements of the Nazerite vow (Numbers 6) and notice the requirement for the Nazerite remain clean and holy. Ergo, Samson was clean and holy even using prostitutes. Why? Because it wasn’t a sin!”

Samson wasn’t clean and holy. He did something far worse than violate his vow when he married the Philistine in Judges 14. Samson’s strength and acts were because God willed it regardless of his own personal decisions. His greatest act was AFTER his hair was cut.

“There is no prohibition on a man having sex with a virgin who is not betrothed and it doesn’t matter whether it’s with her consent or against her will. I just went over that and the two passages that discuss this are Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.”

But there is a punishment because it’s a sin. Exodus 22: 16-17,
“If a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

Also, notice that the girl’s father is in no way required to give her to him and that sex with the virgin doesn’t equal marriage. The fact a punishment is instituted means the man’s actions are without a doubt sin.

This is a good segway into Deuteronomy 22: 21. It explains WHY a young woman is stoned for not being a virgin.

“then they shall bring out the young woman to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, BECAUSE she has done an outrageous thing in Israel BY WHORING IN HER FATHER’S HOUSE. So you shall purge the EVIL from your midst.”

Notice it’s the act of whoring that’s sin and gets her executed. Recall that sex between a man and a virgin doesn’t automatically make them husband and wife(Exodus 22: 16-17). If it’s a sin for a virgin, it’s a sin for a non-virgin. The notion that a non-virgin can commit an act which is a sin for a virgin is a doctrine of demons. A sin is a sin regardless of one’s virginity.

“There is no mention of a man (married or otherwise) having sex with a woman who is not a virgin but otherwise eligible to marry him. No mention is another way of saying “no prohibition.” Get it?”

1) See above.
2) That’s false. For a man who’s married, having sex with a woman not his wife is adultery.

“There is a specific prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes and it applies only to prostitutes because only a Christian can join the members of Christ to a whore. However, a careful reading of the text demonstrates that the restriction was only on Christians and only restricted the use of prostitutes.”

This is another outright lie. Here is the full passage in context.

1 Corinthians 6: 12-18,
“‘All things are lawful for me,’ but not all things are helpful. ‘All things are lawful for me,’ but I will not be dominated by anything. ‘Food is meant for the stomach and the stomach for food’—and God will destroy both one and the other. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. And God raised the Lord and will also raise us up by his power. Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For, as it is written, ‘The two will become one flesh.’ But he who is joined to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. Flee from sexual immorality. Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.”

Paul tells the church to flee sexual immorality. Adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc. He uses prostitution as one such example of sexual immorality. In no way does this mean only sex with prostitutes is forbidden.

“Thus, there is still no prohibition on a Christian man (married or otherwise) having sex with a woman who is eligible to marry that isn’t his wife.”

False. See above.

“If she is a virgin, having sex with her is an act of marriage.”

Another lie. Exodus 22: 16-17 makes it clear that sex between a man and a virgin doesn’t necessarily equal marriage.

“If she is eligible to marry but isn’t a virgin (a widow, a legitimately divorced woman or a never-married woman who is not a virgin) having sex with her does not automatically trigger a marriage to her, that depends on HIS intent and HER agreement to marry.”

More lies. I discuss this above. Implicit in AT’s claim is that a woman’s virginity affects whether or not a sexual act is or isn’t a sin. Deuteronomy 22: 21 gives a reason for WHY the woman is executed and that reason is that she “played the whore in her father’s house.” Just because they didn’t execute women and girls who weren’t virgins for “playing the whore in [their] father’s house” in no way means it isn’t sin.

“Yes, it also says to flee from sexual immorality, but the passage does NOT say using a whore is sexual immorality. To understand the passage you’d probably have to read it in the Greek, but I’m guessing that’s beyond you. However, in order to keep your interpretation congruent with the text, you’re saying that *all* non-virgins eligible to marry are whores. That’s quite a slander, even for you.”

This quote was already addressed. But just observe the way AT slithers around the actual text of 1 Cor. 6: 12-18 and changes an example given by Paul into the main command of the passage in order to meet his own made up requirement of the passage having to explicitly name prostitution as sin for it to be such. This can best be described as heretic dyslexia. I don’t intend this as a joke or a form of disparagement. It really best describes the way AT approaches scripture.

“If you cannot cite chapter and verse clearly demonstrating that sex with a woman eligible** to marry is a sin, you are a liar. If you can cite a specific prohibition in the Law, then I’m the liar. But, just so you don’t embarrass yourself, don’t try to claim “Be holy, for I am Holy” is a prohibition (Samson, remember?)”

This is based on AT’s false claims about Romans 4:15 and 5:13. Even though I don’t need to cite the Law of Moses, I’ll go ahead and cite “Be holy, for I am Holy” since AT’s claims about Samson are false. I’ll also cite 1 Cor. 6: 12-18 and Deuteronomy 22: 21.

“You claim that divorce is permitted because the Law says a man can divorce his wife for porneia. I agree with you, that’s true, but it also doesn’t apply to Christians.”

Lies. I point out the DIRECT words of Jesus Christ in Matt. 5 and Matt. 19 which gives a man the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s an affirmation of Deut. 24 and also a NT teaching of its own.

“I’m guessing the problem is you’re a repulsive beta white knight and your wife was so starved for masculine dominance that she was emotionally blown away when some random masculine guy smiled at her and said ‘Hi.’ She was drowning in your oozing beta supplication and she grabbed at that guy’s masculinity like it was a life preserver. One thing led to another, she committed adultery, you found out about it and you divorced her. Now, the Holy Spirit is tearing you up on the inside because of your sin.”

This is funny because AT called me a gamma in the last post where I pointed out his heresies. Many threads before that, he alleged I was a woman. He’s built up his impressions of me over these past months. I’ve gone from being a woman>gamma>beta. No clue why AT feels the need to increase my SMV in his imaginings about me.

To top this off, he calls me “a repulsive beta white knight” and imagines my “oozing beta supplication” which drives my “wife” into the arms over another man. Only to then turn around and guess that I behaved in a way which is the exact opposite of every name he just called me.

Of course I’ve said multiple times on here that I’ve never been married. AT of course knows this.

“I understand, you aren’t the only one to ever make a mistake and wives hit on me all the time, so I’ll try to sidestep your emotional angst and use an analogy…

QUOTE CONDENSED.

….The Constitution says it and I have the right to do it!” I have heard arguments like this in court before and I’ve heard the court *correctly* say “The Constitution does not apply here.”

This is an apples to dead maggots comparison. It’s clear Matt. 5 and Matt. 19 are NT teaching as much as they are affirmations of the OT teaching. They are fully in line with the will of God(OT and NT). Christ’s bondservants have a duty to obey those two chapters as much as any other part of Jesus’ ministry. Just because Paul didn’t mention the specific circumstances for divorce and remarriage in 1 Cor. 7 in no way nullifies or changes the DIRECT words of Jesus Christ. Paul didn’t need to rehash fundamental, widely known doctrines in a letter to the church.

“Wormtongue, in claiming that Matthew 19:6 gives any Christian man married to a Christian woman the right to divorce is the same thing as the example above. You can claim “Jesus said it” and point to either Matthew 5:31-32 or Matthew 19 all day long, but it does not change the fact that for his bondservants, Jesus made a specific prohibition on divorce for two married believers in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11.”

False again. See above. Just because Paul didn’t explicitly state the exception clause in this instance in no way changes or nullifies what Christ said in Matt. 5 or Matt. 19. The same reason why all the NT passages about the assurance of a Christian’s salvation doesn’t mean a pagan can simply say the sinner’s prayer and then go back to idolatry.

Here’s a different example from the scriptures AT brought up. Both Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29 refer to a man taking an unbetrothed girl’s virginity through seduction or force. But only Exodus 22:16-17 makes it clear that the girl’s father has the right to refuse to give his daughter to her seducer. Deuteronomy 22:28-29 remains silent on this subject. But it doesn’t in any way change or nullify the father’s right to refuse to give his daughter to her seducer/attacker. All it means is the Lord saw no need to constantly reiterate an exception or condition to his widely known commands.

This is the exact same reason the exception clause isn’t mentioned in 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 or the other gospels. It’s because it was and is widely known. Jesus Christ both affirmed Deut. 24 and established Matt. 5 and 19 in the NT.

A man has the RIGHT to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s no sin.

Artisanal Toad @ January 10, 2016 at 8:53 pm:
” the fact that God regulated polygyny (just as He regulated farming) indicates a right to choose polygyny if the individual desires. It is no different from a man choosing to be a farmer.”

And there’s your error. You want to fornicate freely without the bother of following Christ’s teachings so you jump back and forth between NT and OT principles making selective interpretations to create a loophole. You have no intention of letting God crimp your style and think you can legally outmaneuver him into accepting your promiscuity. You do not fear God.

Just like the Pharisees, those legally perfect exemplars of the Mosaic Law who couldn’t recognize their own Savior when He stood in front of them performing miracles.

@Boxer: While I agree with almost everything you say about @Dave, when you say of polygamy “The fact that Rav Saul / St. Paul didn’t come out and damn anyone for polygamy doesn’t mean it’s allowed” I think you are being deliberately obtuse.

Polygamy was the norm in Roman society and Paul was a Roman. These are facts. The fact he did not condemn it is a clear acceptance of it. He even put rules regarding polygamy (limiting Elders to the”husband of one wife” for example- although I always thought this was just an easy way to keep the aristocracy off the church boards since the well-to-do often had several wives at this time. Most of the rules on sex in the NT are ambiguous and have been interpreted by modern churches way out of proportion to the original intent.

One thing most people miss is that almost all of Paul’s moralizing and the strict rules everybody quotes were preceded or followed by some version of: “God didn’t really tell me this and this is what I think so don’t tie yourself into knots if it doesn’t work.” In other places, he clarifies and says “I am not saying this now, this is what the Lord says so pay attention….”

AT’s heresies are so many I don’t know where to start. He makes so many outlandish conclusions using inaccurate and sometimes unrelated, or at best tenuous bible passages. The sad part of it all is that there are some readers who lack discernment, and are lapping it all up.
I will make some time later to refute some of his errors.
—————————–Polygamy was the norm in Roman society and Paul was a Roman. These are facts. The fact he did not condemn it is a clear acceptance of it.

Nonsense. Anyone who understands how God reveals His truth would understand that God almost never revealed everything at once. It is always in phases, “For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little” (Isaiah 28:10).

That said, these are facts:
1. Paul never condemned slavery either. Does that mean he accepted it? I doubt it. Even after preaching to and converting a runaway slave, Onesimus, Paul sent him back to his master, pleading with him to accept the slave “as a brother”, without making the slave owner feel guilty for owning a fellow human being as a piece of property. Read the whole story in the book of Philemon (it has only 1 chapter, and it is a quick read). By your argument, since slavery was common in Roman society, of course it should be OK for Christians to own slaves today.

2. When Jesus began his ministry He focused on the most essential things, while leaving the rest to be revealed later through the Holy Spirit. There were so many things that Jesus did not address in His ministry, because it was not yet time to reveal them, or His hearers were not ready to hear them. The Holy Spirit reveal those truths in time. It will therefore be a mistake for anyone to say that just because Jesus was silent on some issues, He must have accepted those things—one of AT’s prominent heresies.
3. The same principle applies to Paul’s ministry. Here was a man who was appointed as a minister to the Gentiles. There were so many things wrong in the Gentile world at that time, and Paul must focus on those truths that were absolutely necessary to save their souls, while leaving the less important issues until later. Condemning polygamy outright would cause so much social upheaval, and unnecessarily impeded the salvation of so many people. It must be understood that most of those who engaged in polygamy were already married before they came into the faith, and Paul had to address that issue. It is on record that Paul never encouraged anyone to marry more than one wife.

4. I wish all professed Christian folks would grasp this fundamental principle with both hands: any activity or relationship that limits your usefulness in the body of Christ is forbidden to you. It does not matter whether or not such activities or relationships are explicitly forbidden in Scripture. The primary reason why God called you to become a Christian is to become useful to Him during your stay on earth, and anything that hinders that goal cannot be His will for you. This is where AT gets into error with his nonsensical hairsplitting of Scripture. He seems to want to go as close to sin as possible, without actually falling in, and that is the clearest proof of an unregenerated and carnal heart. The regenerated heart loves God so much that he avoids doing things that are not even sinful, but may cast a little doubt on his Christian walk.

Now, clearly Paul stated that polygamy will limit the usefulness of a Christian man, and disqualify him from office. That should be enough to confirm to AT and his followers that Paul never sanctioned polygamy. Moreover, there is not single of any man of repute in the NT who had more than one wife. So those who want to be polygamous do not have any examples to follow in the NT.

@bluepillprofessor “Polygamy was the norm in Roman society and Paul was a Roman.”

I think during the reign of Augustus, polygamy was outlawed in Roman society. IIRC, it had to do with the legal status of offspring. Nevertheless, the Hebrews were grandfathered with the right to polygamy under Roman occupation. But, it was still rare even if allowed.

But, it must be assumed that both Jesus and the disciples did speak to Hebrew men who had more than one wife. I also remember reading an article that Jesus did promote monogamy by using the same language as the Essenes (Genesis language, two become one, etc.) I don’t know if that if correct, however.

Polygamy was the norm in Roman society and Paul was a Roman. These are facts.

Oh? Care to cite some sources?

Damn Crackers:

I think during the reign of Augustus, polygamy was outlawed in Roman society. IIRC, it had to do with the legal status of offspring. Nevertheless, the Hebrews were grandfathered with the right to polygamy under Roman occupation. But, it was still rare even if allowed.

I’m not a historian of Classical Rome nor a philologist, but I know something about this, and I agree that Blue Pill Professor doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Monogamy was something the Romans stumbled upon which is credited for helping them win the Punic wars and build their society.

Gunner Q:

And there’s your error. You want to fornicate freely without the bother of following Christ’s teachings so you jump back and forth between NT and OT principles making selective interpretations to create a loophole. You have no intention of letting God crimp your style and think you can legally outmaneuver him into accepting your promiscuity. You do not fear God.

Whether he fears God or not, AT’s problem is that he doesn’t strictly adhere to the text. Whenever I read something (be it New Testament, Qur’an or Shakespeare’s Othello) I always try to get multiple sources to help me understand the meaning and I question any of my own interpretations otherwise. It’s a very human fallacy to inject one’s own whims and biases into whatever he’s studying. I see nothing in the text of the New Testament which allows a married man to fuck other women, or “marry” them, and I see warnings not to do this as well.

That aside… I have no problem with any man who wants to marry multiple women, and don’t consider it any worse than those men who have sex with multiple women outside the bounds of wedlock (and I know there are a few of these playas right here with me on Dalrock). Be that as it may, there’s substantial historical evidence for the sorts of societies that spring up around communities which embrace polygamy, and these tend to be much more matriarchal, chaotic and “third world” than monogamous societies. This is a simple fact which is borne out by both observation and empirical research. A good place to start is Heinrich et. al. “The Puzzle of Monogamous Marriage”. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2011.0290

Artisinal Toad:

Boxer, I’ve given a lot of thought to the reasons why your descriptions of polygyny are so radically different from my observations and experiences. The only thing that makes sense is the attitude within the FLDS “community” that a man *should* have more than one wife as opposed to the idea that a man *may* have more than one wife results in a situation with the FLDS in which men wind up with more than one wife even though they are completely unqualified and unequipped to herd cats.

This is probably the best bit of speculation I’ve seen as to the disparity. You’re correct in assuming that most of these guys get a lot of social pressure to do this. The alternative is to be cast out of the goofy communist collective farm and try to shift for oneself — becoming a “weirdo” like Brother Boxer who is damned to go to hell with all you gentiles.

I have no doubt that there are a few polygamous marriages that work well, but those tend to be the outliers — people with lots of money who can outsource the work of fathering so many children to others. You’re a bright guy, so I wouldn’t doubt you were in this situation.

It’s the same basic scenario as certain Hollywood starlets who “don’t need no man” and have multiple kids by different fathers (Kate Winslet I’m thinking of here). Of course they don’t need no man, because they can afford to hire nannies and housekeepers and private tutors. These empowered single moms might actually raise functional kids, but that’s only because they’re in an unusual position. They’re hardly a working model that everyone will be able to follow, and suggesting that everyone do this is foolish.

@GunnerQ >And there’s your error. You want to fornicate freely without the bother of following Christ’s teachings so you jump back and forth between NT and OT principles making selective interpretations to create a loophole.

That’s a lie and you know it, dude. He’s not looking to fornicate freely; he’s working out what the Bible *actually says*.

@shammahworm: >AT has cranked out so many new lies in an attempt to support his initial lies that walls of text are unavoidable.
None of what he’s said are lies, dude, aside from the obvious segment of parody in one of his post. Stop lying about what he’s saying. The name he gave you is certainly more apt than the one you adopted for yourself; you’re certainly no mighty warrior. I expect he’s going to give you a right thrashing later, but I’m going to tackle some this myself.

>Here’s Romans 4:15 in its full context. *snip* In no way does this say or imply that the Law of Moses has to explicitly state all sins for them to be considered sins. It’s not saying that if there’s no specific sin mentioned in the law of Moses that it’s okay to engage in a given activity.

It absolutely does, dude.

>It’s saying that Jesus Christ payed for our trespasses in accordance with the law and we now rely on Him for our salvation because salvation is impossible for us under the Law of Moses.

Just because it’s *also* saying that Jesus saved us from our sins, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t define what is and isn’t sin. Simply put, as Christians, we’re called into a personal relationship with God, just like the Jews originally were going to be before they cowered in fear of God’s presence and sent Moses up to speak with God in their place to obtain the Law; as Christians, we’re not bound by the Law because we’ve got the same sort of relationship with God as existed before the Law. That doesn’t mean that the Law isn’t the definitive elaboration of God’s will regarding what is and isn’t sin, however.

>Samson wasn’t clean and holy. He did something far worse than violate his vow when he married the Philistine in Judges 14. Samson’s strength and acts were because God willed it regardless of his own personal decisions. His greatest act was AFTER his hair was cut.

He was definitely clean and holy, prior to getting his hair cut, or else he’d have lost his strength the same way he did after his hair was cut.

>Also, notice that the girl’s father is in no way required to give her to him and that sex with the virgin doesn’t equal marriage. The fact a punishment is instituted means the man’s actions are without a doubt sin.

It does equal marriage; did you even read his post? The man has sex with the virgin girl; they “become one flesh”, and are married. It’s not a punishment, simply a statement of fact. Because the father has the right to negate any vows his daughter makes, however, and she has agreed to be married, the father can revoke this. This is why, if the man forces himself upon the girl, the father *doesn’t* get the right to revoke the marriage, since she never made an agreement for him to negate.

>This is another outright lie. Here is the full passage in context.
LOL. If anything, the full passage supports his point even more! Hoisting yourself on your own petard, much?

>Notice it’s the act of whoring that’s sin and gets her executed.
It’s the act of whoring *in her father’s house*, an act that is explicitly prohibited by the Law.

>2) That’s false. For a man who’s married, having sex with a woman not his wife is adultery.
No, it’s not, you moron, not unless she’s married or engaged. Take a look at the verse from Exodus you just quoted. Does it say anything at all about the marital status of the *man* who has sex with the virgin? It does not – if a married man has sex with a virgin, then he is just as required to take her as a wife as an unmarried man is.

>Paul tells the church to flee sexual immorality. Adultery, premarital sex, homosexuality, etc. He uses prostitution as one such example of sexual immorality. In no way does this mean only sex with prostitutes is forbidden.

And “sexual immorality” is very rigorously defined in the Law. God isn’t a hand-wavy guy who goes “and, you know, don’t have sex with close relatives”; he goes and explicitly defines every single relationship that’s banned, and lists them out in an exhaustive list. Go read Leviticus 18 and Leviticus 20. When he’s laying out his laws, he’s a very thorough and legalistic person – and incidentally, those lists poke another hole in your “everyone’s treated the same for sexual immorality; what’s good for the goose is good for the gander”, since aunt/nephew relationships are explicitly banned but uncle/niece relationships are *not*.

>False again. See above. Just because Paul didn’t explicitly state the exception clause in this instance in no way changes or nullifies what Christ said in Matt. 5 or Matt. 19.

Christ was speaking about the Law in general, as it applies to both Christians and non-Christians; Christian believers then have an additional restriction laid upon them specifically. This is important, since it would effect whether or not a Christian man could legitimately marry a divorced non-believing woman.

1.Do not have sexual relations with thy father (Leviticus 18:7).
2.Do not have sexual relations with thy mother (Leviticus 18:7).
3.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
4.Do not have sexual relations with thy sister (Leviticus 18:9).
5.Do not have sexual relations with thy son’s daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
6.Do not have sexual relations with thy daughter’s daughter (Leviticus 18:10).
7.Do not have sexual relations with the daughter of thy father’s wife (Leviticus 18:11).
8.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s sister (Leviticus 18:12).
9.Do not have sexual relations with thy mother’s sister (Leviticus 18:13).
10.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s brother (Leviticus 18:14).
11.Do not have sexual relations with thy father’s brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:14).
12.Do not have sexual relations with thy daughter-in-law (Leviticus 18:15).
13.Do not have sexual relations with thy brother’s wife (Leviticus 18:16).
14.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
15.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her son’s daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
16.Do not have sexual relations with a woman and her daughter’s daughter (Leviticus 18:17).
17.Do not have sexual relations with thy wife in addition to her sister, as rivals (Leviticus 18:18).
18.Do not have sexual relations with a menstruous woman (Leviticus 18:19).
19.Do not have sexual relations with thy neighbour’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
20.Man can not have sex between men (Leviticus 18:22).
21.Man can not have sexual relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
22.Woman can not have sexual relations with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).

“there was in every section of society a sharp increase in the number of divorces and remarriages of fertile women. A wife who had proved herself a good childbearer might thus pass from one home to the next, providing children. Of course, frequent marriage was also a way of the nobility to enlarge the network of its relations and its political backing. But that did not apply to the families of the plebs (commoners) or of the small provincial notables, where divorce and remarriage were just as common as among Roman nobility.”
…“There are records of many Romans proclaiming that there was nothing worse than marriage, and that, were it not for the necessity to produce children, no one would ever get married. A rich wife was a tyrant and a poor one would spend all your money. So the only Romans who married were those who could not avoid it” Lozllzoozzlllzhttp://www.roman-empire.net/society/soc-marriage.html

That’s a lie and you know it, dude. He’s not looking to fornicate freely; he’s working out what the Bible *actually says*.

If the Bible actually said that, he wouldn’t have to “work it out”. He has an interpretation which is fine, but the bible doesn’t actually say that, and you know it.

If you disagree, then perhaps you could clear it up for a dummox like me. What scriptures in the New Testament allow for a married man to fuck women who are not his wife? What scriptures allow for plural marriage? It should be really simple for you to point me to some clear-cut admonitions pro polygamy, right there in the KJV.

That’s a lie and you know it, dude. He’s not looking to fornicate freely; he’s working out what the Bible *actually says*.

If the Bible actually said that, he wouldn’t have to “work it out”. He has an interpretation which is fine, but the bible doesn’t actually say that, and you know it.

If you disagree, then perhaps you could clear it up for a dummox like me. What scriptures in the New Testament allow for a married man to fuck women who are not his wife? What scriptures allow for plural marriage? It should be really simple for you to point me to some clear-cut admonitions pro polygamy, right there in the KJV.
Thanks,

Boxer

Dear Boxer and to those whom it may concern:
I don’t bother with the polygamy debate any more because I don’t want to be seen to advocate it. But last year I stumbled upon the following document which I found fascinating. It was published by the Bishop [Church of England] of Natal [South Africa] in 1855 because of the following circumstances:
1) Church policy forbade baptising a polygamist.
2) They were getting converts amongst the Zulus that were already in polygamous marriages.
3) This matter had to be resolved.http://anglicanhistory.org/africa/colenso/polygamy1855.html

And “sexual immorality” is very rigorously defined in the Law. God isn’t a hand-wavy guy who goes “and, you know, don’t have sex with close relatives”; he goes and explicitly defines every single relationship that’s banned, and lists them out in an exhaustive list.

Do those OT lists specifically spell out that sex with prostitute as a sin? If not, then why does Paul condemn it?

She’s clearly being plugged by someone else and this is her justification for that. I see a divorce in the near future for her followed by a remarriage. For her soon to be ex-husband I see him rotting alone in jail until he dies. Maybe in 3-5 years tops. People like Rollo can justify it as “he wasn’t alpha enough.” As for those wishing the hell of islam into their midst, be careful what you wish for. Rape, murder, actual slavery including the sexual slavery of children are all very real and all sanctioned by the quran. You have no freedom under islam only the tyranny of what various imams deem “right”.

Dear Boxer and to those whom it may concern:
I don’t bother with the polygamy debate any more because I don’t want to be seen to advocate it. But last year I stumbled upon the following document which I found fascinating.

I’m about where you are. The argument has been done to death (by much better men than I) and I’m never going to agree with you guys. Most of the people who argue with me are among the most interesting people here, and I like the different justifications they come up with (whether sophistry or rhetoric, they at least put some thought into things).

A lot of people think that by “your interpretation” I mean something extrabiblical or sinful, which I don’t, really. It’s OK to interpret an ambiguous text in a certain way; but, you have to appreciate conflicting interpretations also. If some people feel OK with having to take care of multiple women, it’s certainly a “better you than me” scenario in my book. I don’t claim to know what God wants, nor do I have any firm testimony that there is such a character.

I have skimmed that exegesis earlier today and found it to be very sensible. People who are opposed to frivolous divorce (which I assume unites us all here, if nothing else does) have a hard time arguing a purist claim that a polygamist should frivolously divorce all his wives but one of them (and which one? and who decides?) in order to be in the good graces of some church or other.

You know this is false, Don. You’ll have to answer to God for this if you don’t put up the correct doctrine or take it down.

nick012000 is probably a troll. But I think there’s some value in discussing what he says.

Take note of nick012000’s last post and how he,
1) Never actually quotes scripture or addresses what I actually say. It’s just snark and blanket statements to contradict me.
2) Note the various attempts to disqualify which are endemic of SJWs.

“None of what he’s said are lies, dude, aside from the obvious segment of parody in one of his post. Stop lying about what he’s saying.”

Of course he neglects to mention even one. That’s because he knows I’m not lying.

“The name he gave you is certainly more apt than the one you adopted for yourself; you’re certainly no mighty warrior.”

Textbook SJW snark and disqualification. He uses a straw-man implying I fancy myself a “mighty warrior.” I guess it’s possible he could believe worms can be mighty warriors.

“I expect he’s going to give you a right thrashing later, but I’m going to tackle some this myself.”

The only question is whether AT will now slither away and wait for another thread or if he’ll have some more posts first.

“It absolutely does, dude.”

The truth was already pointed out and he makes no attempt to show how it’s false. Notice how he omits the quote of Romans 4: 15 in its full context. Romans 4: 13-15,
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

That’s the truth better than I could ever summarize.

“Just because it’s *also* saying that Jesus saved us from our sins, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t define what is and isn’t sin.”

At no point does it say or imply the Law of Moses completely lists every single sin in existence. Romans 4: 13-15,
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

“That doesn’t mean that the Law isn’t the definitive elaboration of God’s will regarding what is and isn’t sin, however.”

God’s judgments prior to Israel’s existence shows sin exists outside of the Law of Moses. God punished for sins before Israel was even in his mother’s womb. But that’s besides Romans 4: 13-15,
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

“He was definitely clean and holy, prior to getting his hair cut, or else he’d have lost his strength the same way he did after his hair was cut.”

Samson wasn’t in any way clean or holy. He married a Philistine in full violation of the law. God allowed Samson to keep his strength for his own purposes, not because of Samson’s holiness.

“It does equal marriage; did you even read his post? The man has sex with the virgin girl; they “become one flesh”, and are married. It’s not a punishment, simply a statement of fact. Because the father has the right to negate any vows his daughter makes, however, and she has agreed to be married, the father can revoke this.”

It doesn’t equal marriage as I already explained. It IS a punishment because the man is forced to pay the bride price regardless of whether or not her father gives her to him. He has stolen from her father since he will be unable to marry his daughter or do so with severe limitations. “Thou shalt not steal” is a far more important passage to consider along with Exodus 22 and Deut. 22.

“This is why, if the man forces himself upon the girl, the father *doesn’t* get the right to revoke the marriage, since she never made an agreement for him to negate.”

The daughter isn’t the one who makes the choice about marriage at all. She can’t vow anything because the decisions aren’t her’s to make. It IS sin because the man is forbidden from divorcing her. That’s a punishment “because he has violated her.” It’s also hilarious you think a father has less rights when a man robs him by force than when a man robs him via trickery. The father does get the right to revoke the marriage especially since most instances of a man and girl having sex would be a “he said, she said.”

Not that this matters to the larger issue as I already demonstrated sex with a virgin =/= marriage.

“LOL. If anything, the full passage supports his point even more!”

And of course no explanation as to why this is the case because it’s not.

“Hoisting yourself on your own petard, much?”

We got a memester here, folks. That snark would serve you a lot better on Reddit than here.

“It’s the act of whoring *in her father’s house*, an act that is explicitly prohibited by the Law.”

This doesn’t mean the acts have to literally take place in her father’s house.

“No, it’s not, you moron, not unless she’s married or engaged.”

Yes it is. Matthew 5:28. I won’t put the energy into pasting that for you. Gotta love how Jesus aka God both addresses the law and speaks brand new teaching at the same time.

“And “sexual immorality” is very rigorously defined in the Law.”

There’s sin besides what’s defined in the law. I already pointed it out.

“Christ was speaking about the Law in general, as it applies to both Christians and non-Christians; Christian believers then have an additional restriction laid upon them specifically.”

Nope. He was both affirming the law and giving NT teaching. Those teachings and commands are still in effect today. 1 Cor. 7 in no way nullifies the DIRECT words of Christ. A man, Christian and non-christian has the RIGHT to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s no sin.

“This is important, since it would effect whether or not a Christian man could legitimately marry a divorced non-believing woman.”

Marrying a non-believer is a sin. Christians are forbidden from being unequally yoked to non-believers.

God’s second greatest commandment hasn’t even been mentioned by me and it applies to so much of what’s been discussed in this thread. “Love your neighbor as yourself” has so many implications that listing them all in detail wouldn’t be logistically possible. It’s not the duty of God or his followers to spell out all sins for people masquerading as Christians.

Nick012000 did a workmanlike job dissecting your piece, so I’ll just trim around the edges a bit.

I’ll start with your projection and point and shriek mentality. In your comment to me you used the following words to characterize what I wrote:

[lie/lies] Used 8 times.
[twisted/twisting] used 4 times
[false/falsehood] used 3 times
[error] used 1 time
[deceit] used 1 time
[slither] used 1 time

Have you ever considered that calling anyone who disagrees with your particular interpretation of the Bible is a liar is pretty arrogant? I’m sure it never crossed your mind. However, I’ll point out a few problems with your analysis, starting with the root of it. Nick mentioned it, but it needs to be laid out clearly:

Note how AT twists the implications of Romans 4:15 and 5:13 from “there is no sin imputed” aka people aren’t held accountable for that sin to “ONLY the stuff that’s prohibited in the Law is sin” later in the same post.

Actually, Wormtongue, it should be “Only the stuff that’s a specific violation of the Law is sin” because the Law contains positive commands (You shall) along with negative commands (You shall not) and not doing what you were commanded to do is sin just as much as doing the things you were commanded not to do. But, let’s take a look at what the passage actually says.

First, we have the prelude, discussing salvation, and you seem to overlook a critical point, which is that it is not “keeping the Law” that brings salvation but rather the faith that brings salvation. Those under the Law had faith that their sacrifices (which did not atone for sin but were merely a covering, a shadow of the true atonement to come) were not in vain.

Then, “For the Law brings wrath.” Full stop. Paul said he did not covet until the Law told him not to covet. The Law is a schoolmaster. So, “the Law brings wrath BUT where there is no Law there is no transgression.” We see the same thing in Romans 5:13. God gave His Law in order to point to the need for salvation, but while there is sin in the world “where there is no Law there is no sin imputed.”

When speaking specifically of the Law and the operation of the Law, the subject is not salvation, it is the operation of the Law. In previous posts I covered the action of Romans 14:23 (“that which is not of faith is sin”) and James 4:17 (He who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him that is sin”), which demonstrates that yes, it is possible to offend the conscience and sin, although the act of one man might be a sin while the same act by another man would not be a sin.

However, the text specifically states the following:

Where there is no LAW there is no VIOLATION

Where there is no LAW there is no sin IMPUTED.

Three words, wormtongue. Just three, so let’s take a look at them.

Law: (Greek: nomos ) Strong’s 3551: “of law in general, plural: of divine laws; of a force or influence impelling to action; of the Mosaic law; meton: of the books which contain the law, the Pentateuch, the Old Testament scriptures in general.” (Emphasis added)

Pay Attention, Wormtongue, and see how Strong’s Concordance “twists” Scripture (as you so incorrectly claim). What we do when we want to understand what the passage is saying is we take the definition of the word and insert that definition in place of the word. It looks like this:

Where there is no [divine law or the Mosaic Law] there is no [breaking of God’s Law which defines His boundaries] and [a violation of God’s Law] is not [set to one’s account].

We know God’s Law exists, commanding us to do certain things and commanding us not to do certain things. It follows that if God did not prohibit something, the reason is because He CHOSE not to (His Law is Perfect- Psalm 19) and if God chose not to prohibit something, then doing whatever it is that God chose not to prohibit does not result in a violation (sin) of one of God’s requirements of us and there is nothing to be charged to our account.

Wormtongue tries to avoid the text by changing the subject:

In no way does this say or imply that the Law of Moses has to explicitly state all sins for them to be considered sins. It’s not saying that if there’s no specific sin mentioned in the law of Moses that it’s okay to engage in a given activity. It’s saying that Jesus Christ payed for our trespasses in accordance with the law and we now rely on Him for our salvation because salvation is impossible for us under the Law of Moses.

Wormtongue, you made 4 statements there:
1. “In no way does this say or imply that the Law of Moses has to explicitly state all sins for them to be considered sins” Incorrect, that is exactly what the relevant part of the text does say.
2. “It’s not saying that if there’s no specific sin mentioned in the law of Moses that it’s okay to engage in a specific activity.” Strawman. [Not prohibited] means [free to choose]. [free to choose] is a matrix involving wisdom, your conscience, government regulation, obligations to family and many other things. Additionally, trying to say “not prohibited means it’s OK” is shifting the goalposts and ignores all of the points I just mentioned.
3. “It is saying that Jesus Christ payed for our trespasses in accordance with the Law and we now rely on Him for our salvation” Correct, but irrelevant. I was not talking about salvation, but referring specifically to Paul’s description of the Law.
4. “because salvation is impossible for us under the Law of Moses.” Correct for Christians today, not for those living under the Law before the coming of Christ, and irrelevant to my argument.

Thus, your response had one incorrect statement, a strawman argument and two correct but irrelevant arguments. That’s called a deflection. If did not answer or rebut the argument I made, rather, it was a response designed to move the goalposts and change the subject. I was talking about the Law and sin (a problem), not salvation (the solution).

It completely escapes Wormtongue that I was not speaking to the issue of salvation, but rather righteous living and the Law of God. Righteous living means living life in such a way that does not transgress against God’s Law because a Christian wants to be obedient to God just as any good child wants to be obedient to his father. One does not honor and obey God’s Law as a Christian in order to gain salvation, but in order to be an obedient Child of God who wants to please his Father.

Shall we ignore the Law and sin more in order that grace might abound more? Paul’s answer was “May it never be!” which is the strongest possible way of saying “no” in the Greek. To put it in the vernacular, “Not only NO, but HELL NO!”

Pay attention, Wormtongue, this is how logic works when we take THE TEXT and read it for what it ACTUALLY SAYS:

Violating the Law is a transgression (a sin) which is added to the account of the sinner.
There must be a Law to break in order to have a violation of the Law (which is sin).
It is impossible to break a Law that does not exist.
If there is no Law against “XX” then doing “XX” cannot be a violation of the Law.
If there is no Law prohibiting “XX” then doing/saying/feeling/wanting “XX” is not a sin.

You are taking the position that because sin is in the world, that something can be a sin even though it isn’t specified in the Law. Even though that is exactly the opposite of what the text says. This is sometimes explained as Sin/sin. The Sin is a violation of God’s Law, which is a Sin for all people for all time. The sin is a violation of the conscience (see the Romans 14 discussion ending with the statement “that which is not of faith is sin.”

It appears you are arguing that it is possible for something to be Sin for everyone that is not specifically included in God’s Law because the text says sin is in the world. This is exactly the opposite of what the text says. Notice, however, that in doing so you are arguing for the point that YOU can decide what is SIN for someone else, absent God’s prohibition. This is about you wanting to play God. You demonstrate this attitude with your arrogance, asserting that anyone who does not agree with your exegesis is a liar.

You actually had the audacity to say:

it’s impossible for anyone to achieve salvation via the Law of Moses. So as long as people are under the law, it’s impossible for them to be saved.

What about Isaiah? Or Ezekiel? Or Daniel? They lived under the Law. Are you telling me *they* weren’t saved? That they won’t be already waiting there in heaven for you to see if you actually make it there? And you must have skipped that part about the Mount of Transfiguration, when…. wait for it…. Elijah and Moses appeared and spoke with Jesus! How is it that they lived under the Law, but weren’t burning in Hell? How is it that they appeared with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration if they weren’t saved? And whatever happened to that fantastic piece of doctrine that says the “Righteous shall walk by Faith?”

It wasn’t just the “big guys” though. Consider the words of Jesus in John 1:47

”Jesus saw Nathanael coming to Him, and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” In other words, Nathanael was a righteous man (under the Law).

And what about the “Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11? Rahab the harlot, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and many, many others. They were under the Law- how then were they saved? By faith, looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, just as we look back and have faith. How did they demonstrate their faith? By keeping the Law.

I don’t expect you to agree, I don’t even expect you to understand.

Wormtongue weaseled with his words again because he didn’t read the text:

Samson wasn’t clean and holy. He did something far worse than violate his vow when he married the Philistine in Judges 14.

Logic Fail and a superb slander of one of the extremely rare men in the OT who had the Spirit of the Lord with him and judged Israel for 20 years. How very Christlike of you, Wormtongue.

*The Nazerite Vow requires the Nazerite to be clean and holy.
*The Spirit of the Lord was with Samson while he judged Israel for 20 years.
*Samson married a Philistine woman, but the Spirit of the Lord remained with him.
*Samson used Philistine whores, but the Spirit of the Lord remained with him.
*Samson violated his vow when his hair was cut and the Spirit of the Lord departed.

Ergo, Samson was clean and holy until his Nazerite vow was violated. Not only that, but Samson has a mention by name in the Hebrews “Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11. But, Wormtongue is offended at the idea of Samson marrying the Philistine woman, so let’s take a look at what actually happened.

Then Samson went down to Timnah and saw a woman in Timnah, one of the daughters of the Philistines. So he came back and told his father and mother, “I saw a woman in Timnah, one of the daughters of the Philistines; now therefore, get her for me as a wife.” Then his father and his mother said to him, “Is there no woman among the daughters of your relatives, or among all our people, that you go to take a wife from the uncircumcised Philistines?” But Samson said to his father, “Get her for me, for she looks good to me.” However, his father and mother did not know that it was of the Lord, for He was seeking an occasion against the Philistines.”

It wasn’t that God was somehow putting up with Samson’s problems, rather, Samson married the Philistine because God wanted him to, in order to stir up trouble with the Philistines. Wormtongue, in order to comprehend the text, you have to read it for what it says and not what you want it to say. Simple logic, but it gets better. Much better (or worse, depending on whether the reader sees the humor or the tragedy)

Wormtongue, I realize that you probably didn’t read my comment about marriage and the definition of marriage in this comment but I’m not going to repeat it here. If you had read it carefully and considered the implications, you’d be quaking in your shoes. As it is, all you’ve done is claim that I’m wrong. You claim Nick012000 is an SJW, because he responded to you in exactly the same manner you respond to others. He told you that you were wrong but didn’t cite the Scripture to demonstrate that you were wrong.

You have not refuted any of the points I made about the initiation of marriage, all you’ve done is claimed I was wrong. I laid out the context (authority to marry, requirements to initiate a marriage) and discussed the issue of the virgin’s agency (specifically using Numbers 30 and the cited passages) as opposed to the agency of a woman no longer under the authority of her father or husband. Your response was typical of you, in that it did not address the argument.

The implication is simple. A virgin has no agency WRT the initiation of her marriage. Whether she voluntarily gives her virginity to the man or whether he takes it, it is the act of consummating the marriage. If she was in agreement with the act, her father has the capacity to annul the marriage by exercising his right of nullification (Numbers 30- the Law of Vows).

Here is what should really bother a lot of people. If the girl willing gives her virginity away, it is the consummation of her marriage as far as God is concerned. She does not tell her father about it, he has no opportunity to annul her wedding. (take special note that in the case of the seduction of the virgin, it did not matter whether they got caught) Afterward, she behaves like most young women these days and bangs a bunch of other dudes. The technical term for a married woman having sex with someone other than her husband is adultery. Thus, with every guy after the first that she spread her legs for, she was committing adultery. Later, when she finally walked down the aisle and “officially” got married, it wasn’t actually a marriage because she was already married and a married woman cannot marry another man while her husband is alive.

Does anyone wonder why this country is swimming in a cesspool of shit?

Does anyone wonder that the people who knew and understood that this is exactly what Scripture is saying created elaborate marriage ceremonies to make sure everyone KNEW they were getting married?

Wormtongue, you state the young woman who is stoned at the door of her father’s house was stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. A harlot is a prostitute, but prostitution was not prohibited by the Law and was in no way a death-penalty offense. Adultery, however, was a death-penalty offense. The question is how to look at this. Did she commit adultery against her husband that she gave her virginity to, or did she commit adultery against the man she was betrothed to and publicly married (claiming to be a virgin) when she was not a virgin. You claim the virgin has agency (although you have shown exactly zero proof of that) so we’ll set that aside and look at it from the other direction.

The betrothed virgin was legally married, although the marriage had not yet been consummated. Thus, if the woman were found not to be a virgin, it could reasonably be assumed that she violated her betrothal and is an adulteress. Either way, it’s adultery which is a death penalty offense. Harlotry is not a death penalty offense until they try to fraudulently claim they’re virgins and get married. Then it kicks in the death penalty for adultery.

Your major point-and-shriek has been over divorce and your claim (“Jesus said it! The very WORDS OF JESUS! Right there!) falls flat for three reasons.

First, you fail to see that when asked what the grounds for divorce were, Jesus replied and said there were none (What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.) Then the Pharisees asked why, if there were no grounds for divorce, that Moses commanded it. Jesus responded again and corrected them, saying Moses only permitted it and then only because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not that way.

Second, after quoting from the Creation story Jesus said there were no grounds for divorce and that’s the way it had been from the beginning, but with Deuteronomy 24:1-3 squarely before Him, Jesus interpreted THE LAW OF MOSES and said a man could only divorce his wife for “porneia.” He was speaking to the Pharisees, interpreting the LAW.

This, Wormtongue, is where your heuristic falls apart. You claim we are in Christ and under the Law, yet, you are trying to pull the right to divorce out of the Law and apply it to you, while in the same breath you reject the authority of the Law over you. Have you not read Galatians 5:3? “And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”

Third, while loudly screeching about JESUS and His WORDS, you completely overlook the fact that it’s Jesus speaking in 1st Corinthians 7;10-11, but in this case, Jesus is NO LONGER speaking to Pharisees and He is no longer discussing the Law of Moses. In that passage Jesus is speaking to the church and the instruction is limited to believers:

“But to the married I give instructions, not I, but the Lord, that the wife should not leave her husband (but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband), and that the husband should not divorce his wife.”

It isn’t just that the instruction was included in a letter written to the church at Corinth, but the following verses make it clear that the above passage was specifically referring to two married believers because the following verses discuss what happens if a believer is married to an unbeliever. The differences between Matthew 19 and 1st Corinthians 7 are obvious:

In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.

In Matthew 19, Jesus is interpreting the Law of Moses when He explains that a man can only legitimately divorce his wife for porneia, but in 1st Corinthians 7 Jesus is providing instruction to His bondservants within the church, commanding them not to divorce.

In Matthew 19, Jesus upheld the Law of Moses regarding divorce and interpreted it, while in 1st Corinthians He is forbidding His servants to exercise their right to divorce under the Law.

In Matthew 19, Jesus explains the “except for porneia” grounds for divorce. In 1st Corinthians 7 the exception for porneia was replaced with the exception that divorce is only permitted if a believer is married to an unbeliever and the unbelieving spouse leaves. That’s it. Otherwise, the believing man is completely forbidden to divorce his believing wife. No exceptions for porneia.

Boil it all down and here is what we have (two completely different situations):

Jesus the man ==> speaking to the Pharisees who are in authority over Him ==> interpreting the Law of Moses permitting divorce ==> within the issue of divorce

Christ the Risen Lord ==> instructing His servants whom He has authority over ==> commanding them not to divorce ==> within the issue of divorce

Wormtongue claims he is not under the Law but rather under Christ, yet He chooses to ignore Christ’s command to His church which forbids divorce, preferring the Law instead, which allows a man to divorce his wife for porneia.

The instruction to the church did away with the exception for porneia and replaced it with the exception that the only divorce permitted to a believer is when said believer is married to an unbeliever and the unbeliever leaves. This is supported by the fact that claiming divorce is permitted to Christians married to each other violates the command in Ephesians 5, to the husband, to love his wife as Christ loves the church.

Question: If a Christian sins and in doing so turns away from Christ, does Christ ever fail to forgive that Christian of his sin, cleanse him from all unrighteousness and restore him to fellowship if he confesses his sin and repents of it? (c.f. 1st John 1:9)

As the Apostle Paul puts it, May It Never Be!

Therefore, as a husband who is to love his wife as Christ loves His church, how can the husband divorce his wife and claim he loves her as Christ loves the church? The simple answer is he cannot. Marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and His church and in keeping with that typology, Wormtongue, Christ prohibited divorce to His married bondservants and the only exception is if the bondservant is married to an unbeliever who leaves them.

At the end of the day, your fanatic insistence on keeping to the Law in order to do what Jesus commanded you not to do simply makes you a hypocrite.

@shammahworm: LOL. You think I’m a Social Justice Warrior? That’s hilarious, since I’m literally on the opposite end of the spectrum: I’m a NatSoc. Also, as for me saying that you’re calling yourself a “mighty warrior” when you aren’t, I was referring to the first part of your username: Shammah was one of David’s Three Mighty Warriors.

@ArtisanalToad: >Wormtongue, you state the young woman who is stoned at the door of her father’s house was stoned for playing the harlot in her father’s house. A harlot is a prostitute, but prostitution was not prohibited by the Law and was in no way a death-penalty offense.

Actually, ArtisanalToad, prostitution in general wasn’t an offense under the Law, but there are four specific cases where it is: when a woman is married, when a woman is living with her parents, when a woman is the daughter of a Levite priest, and when it is performed for ritual religious purposes (temple prostitution). Aside from Temple prostitution, the common feature they all share is that they’re supposed to be supported by other people (the Levites were paid a salary by the Temple, and if you have a husband, or you’re living with your parents they’re supposed to take care of you).

I’m going to respond to AT’s post in more detail later. But the satanic “teaching” quoted below needs it’s own post. Note the all caps I added to emphasize his heresy.

“In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the PHARISEES WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY OVER HIM (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.”

They were NEVER EVER in “authority over” Jesus in any sense of the word. I’ll give just one verse in case there’s any reader who has real concerns. Of course there are many more. Matthew 7: 28-29,
“And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching, for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.”

AT is a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher who delights in spreading false doctrines and posting his paragraphs of garbage on this site and others. This is the greatest confirmation yet of the necessity to expose him whenever he posts his lies on here and other blogs as well.

@GunnerQ
Reading comprehension. I saidAnd what about the “Hall of Fame” in Hebrews 11? Rahab the harlot, Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and many, many others. They were under the Law- how then were they saved? By faith, looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, just as we look back and have faith. How did they demonstrate their faith? By keeping the Law.

You responded, saying “Not by the Mosaic Law. They believed Christ would come just as we today believe He did come. That is the only source of salvation.”

How were they to demonstrate their faith, GunnerQ? By obeying God through the keeping of His commandments. The Law taught them they were sinning, the Law commanded them to make sacrifices in atonement for their sin (even though those sacrifices were insufficient) and their faith in obeying God and not transgressing His Law and making the sacrifices according to the Law when they did transgress, all the while looking forward to the coming Messiah, according to the Law and prophets, was the faith that saved them.

If I am incorrect in this, how did they *demonstrate* their faith in the coming Messiah? Please explain.

@WormtongueThey were NEVER EVER in “authority over” Jesus in any sense of the word.

Your use of all caps does not make your assertion true, but in this case you aren’t just wrong, your error is of such magnitude as to invalidate Jesus as Messiah. Observe the text of Matthew 23:1-3 that I cited (and obviously either didn’t read or couldn’t understand):

“Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples, saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

Jesus was speaking to the crowds and to the Disciples, men and women of Israel.

Jesus commanded them to obey the scribes and Pharisees who were in the seat of Moses, a position of authority over the nation of Israel and Judah that was instituted by Moses in the Law.

Jesus was born a man, of the house of David and the tribe of Judah. During His earthly ministry He was completely a man and under the authority of the Law of Moses (Jesus kept the Law of Moses perfectly and never sinned- otherwise He would not have been a perfect sacrifice) and thus likewise, He was under the authority of those sitting in the seat of Moses (those who had the authority to judge according to the Law) *because* He was under the authority of the Law.

Your quoted passage does not in any way negate this point:

“for he was teaching them as one who had authority, and not as their scribes.

He spoke with the authority of the truth, but he was still under the authority of those who held the position of judges over Israel, sitting in the seat of Moses. We see the same thing throughout the history of Israel, in that prophets were under the authority of the King but still spoke with the authority of God, even to the King (c.f. 2nd Samuel 12- the Prophet Nathan rebukes King David).

To say, as you claim, “They were NEVER EVER in “authority over” Jesus in any sense of the word” is to say that the Law did not apply to Jesus and He was not under the authority of the Law- which is what gave the scribes and Pharisees their authority to judge. The only way your preposterous claim is possible is if He were not a man (yet Scripture says He “gave up” His glory and became a man) or He was not of the House of David and the tribe of Judah, thus not being the man who was prophesied to be the Messiah.

Numbers 11 has the relevant details (which you won’t read, so I’ll just provide a quick thumbnail here). Moses was overworked and appointed judges to hear the lesser cases with only the difficult cases referred to Moses, whom God appointed as Judge over Israel. The seventy elders appointed as judges became known as the Sanhedrin and their role as judges continued after Moses as they continued to judge the nation under the authority of Moses. The “Words of Jesus” confirm this in Matthew 23:1-3, which, if you’ll notice, I cited but you either didn’t read or didn’t understand.

-100 for failure to read/understand the text
-1000 for attempting to invalidate the sacrifice of Christ through sheer idiocy.

Wormtongue, this exegesis thing is kicking your ass. Have you considered finding a new hobby?

The exceptions you cite prove the rule that there is no (general) prohibition on garden-variety money for sex prostitution.

Personally I see this as a protection for women, for as history has shown time and time again, sometimes the only way a woman can feed herself and her children is by working on her back.

While I’m familiar with NatSoc, I don’t have any around my location. If you know some women of the NatSoc persuasion that follow the old gods, I’d like to interview them. Let them know I’m interested in talking to a few Valkeries.

Jesus was born a man, of the house of David and the tribe of Judah. During His earthly ministry He was completely a man and under the authority of the Law of Moses (Jesus kept the Law of Moses perfectly and never sinned- otherwise He would not have been a perfect sacrifice) and thus likewise, He was under the authority of those sitting in the seat of Moses (those who had the authority to judge according to the Law) *because* He was under the authority of the Law.

1. You are confusing Christ’s instruction to His hearers with His person as Christ, the coming Messiah.
Jesus lived and died under the Authority of Moses as you rightly said (He was “born under the Law” Galatians 4:4), and that explains some of His pronouncements that were incompatible with the NT teachings under the Gospel. For instance, when a man asked Jesus what he must do to have eternal life, Jesus told him to go “keep the commandments” (Matthew 19:16). That may be right under the law, but it is not right under the Gospel, since there is no Law given that can justify anyone (Romans 3:20); the purpose of the Law was to bring forth our guilt, and shut us to the coming Messiah as the only means of our justification (Romans 3:19; Galatians 3:24-26). However, in the OT, keeping the Law was the clearest evidence of godliness.

2. But Christ was never under the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees. Rather, He denounced, rejected and lectured them time and again. Picture the Chief of police addressing a group of people held hostage by a rogue police officer. Just because he tells them “Do whatever he asks you to do” does not mean that he, as the chief of police, is going to subject himself to that rogue police officer.
Throughout His stay on earth there was not one recorded instance where Jesus even so much as agreed with the Scribes and Pharisees, not to talk of submitting Himself to them. Rather, we saw how He rejected them, denounced them, called them names and publicly shamed them time and time again.

” Paul never condemned slavery either. Does that mean he accepted it? I doubt it.”

WRONG! Paul regulated slavery just as he regulated marriage, just as he regulated polygamy. More facts for you to chew on. Neither slavery, polygamy or marriage are sins. Slaves are to obey their masters and men with more than one wife cannot be elders. You walked right into it.

This argument against Polygamy is starting to sound like the church of Christ and their ridiculous stance on musical instruments. Reaching and grasping and throwing out all logic.

No music? Gee, I wonder if the almighty Paul ever read Psalms, which ends with instruction to praise the Lord with musical instruments but since he didn’t mention it SPECIFICALLY then it might not be allowed.

More than one wife? Gee, half the prophets had multiple wives, and Paul gave specific instructions on how having more than one wife was to be handled in the church (they can’t be elders). So…that means what he regulated is not allowed and we just ignore the entire Old Testament while we are at it because a 3rd century Priest said so?

AT has either never met Christ in a personal way, or he is a backslidden man, bent on justifying sin with some tortured and twisted Bible verses, to his own eternal regret.
God is not interested in raising people who would look for loopholes in His word to justify their unregenerated and sinful hearts and habits. Rather, He is raising a people that are sold out for Him and have no desire to sin in any form.
When AT looks at the word, and asks himself “Has God really said….?” he is not being led by the Holy Spirit but by the spirit of error. That was the same spirit that led Eve into sin in the first place. God’s word is to be read or heard, believed and obeyed. No one has a right to twist and torture God’s word, and make it say what it did not say. Those who do so are creating a god after their own likeness and after their own image, and that is not the God of the Bible.

Gee, half the prophets had multiple wives, and Paul gave specific instructions on how having more than one wife was to be handled in the church (they can’t be elders).

You’re the one throwing out all logic.
1. Mention any “blessing” that God bestows on His children that limit them from fully participating in His program. (Hint: there is none. The fact that polygamists are excluded from positions of leadership in the Church means that God frowns at the practice).
2. Mention anyone in the NT—anyone–who had more than one wife. (Hint: you can’t, because no one of importance in the NT had multiple wives). Even if you don’t believe the early Christians, look at their way of life.
3. Prove that a biblical marriage can involve more than 2 people (Hint: you can’t, because a biblical marriage means two, not three, four or five, becoming one).
4. Prove that polygamy is not a deviation from God’s plan for marriage. (Hint: you can’t because when God thought of marriage, he thought of one man and one woman coming together to form a family unit).
5. Prove that polygamous families have better outcomes than monogamous ones (Hint: you can’t, and that is why most people don’t do it).

Somebody explain why some guy would want more than one wife these days. I guess the question comes from a marriage to a by law sexless rebellious women we have now days. women are a legal, emotional and financial money pit as it is. I can’t imagine some jackass thinking he is set having 4 of them.

That is ridiculous. You cannot lump marriage with something as horrendous as slavery and you knew that, if you are not being facetious. Neither can you put marriage and polygamy, a perversion of marriage, together. God instituted marriage, not polygamy or slavery.
When you hold a fellow human being as if they were a piece of furniture, to dispose as you will, how in the world could you say you are not doing harm to that person, and that you are keeping the law of God?
If love does no wrong to your neighbor, and love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10 ), and you are required to love your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14), how can you justify slavery?

Somebody explain why some guy would want more than one wife these days. I guess the question comes from a marriage to a by law sexless rebellious women we have now days. women are a legal, emotional and financial money pit as it is. I can’t imagine some jackass thinking he is set having 4 of them.

What motivates a woman to frivorce her husband is what motivates the man to become polygamous: rather than dealing with the marriage and making it work, they would rather look for a replacement

Somebody explain why some guy would want more than one wife these days. I guess the question comes from a marriage to a by law sexless rebellious women we have now days. women are a legal, emotional and financial money pit as it is. I can’t imagine some jackass thinking he is set having 4 of them.

You’re exactly right.

I’m sure I’ll be labelled a conspiracy theorist or something, but the push for legalizing polygamy comes from the same vultures that promote all sorts of “alternative lifestyles” nonsense (swinging, gay buttsex, furries, weird sexual fetishes, etc.).

Shows like “Big Love” and “Sister Wives” are probably entertaining and somewhat endearing, but they have nothing to do with the reality of the situation. Most of the men who are stuck in this lifestyle are totally miserable, and some have dozens of feral kids they can’t keep track of, much less support. The women all get together and gossip and backbite and play the husband like a chump, and he works himself half to death just to stay afloat. The kids grow up only halfway knowing their father, and they usually have all sorts of “issues” much like single-mom raised bastards who grow up in welfare housing projects or trailer parks.

In short, you guys shouldn’t believe the hype. There’s a reason that traditional patriarchy — enforced by Christianity and Judaism — inspired high culture and civilization, with men conquering the moon and the atom, while polygamist societies are dirt poor, crime ridden, and generally shitty for everyone.

I haven’t followed along with most of this, but I can notice one classic problem of trying to “fit” what you want into the Bible always crops up. But I also notice a point that’s being missed.

There is no Biblical principle between choosing a Big Mac or a Whopper. Or having Blue Cheese or Parmesan on your salad. But while having a glass of Wine isn’t a sin, downing 4 bottles is. There are subtleties to dealing with things that come very natural to Humans and what God has laid out.

The short answer is this: Owning a Slave or Having Multiple Wives does not condemn your Soul. The nature of being in possession of those positions of Authority is not a Sin. How you act when your society allows such a thing is where the Sin happens.

Because you’re a complete moron if you think God is pleased to encourage temptation to the destruction of people. Both systems always go pretty badly because Power is easily the greatest tempter of a Man’s soul. It’s why, if you actually understand God & your own Soul well enough, the hardest direct command in the Bible is really this: “Masters, do the same to them, and stop your threatening, knowing that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and that there is no partiality with him.” (Ephesians 6:9 ESV)

Far too often in this type of discussion, it is noticeable that the cost & corruption that Power bring about is oblivious to the minds of those making the arguments. Which means either they’ve never had any real authority from which to learn from or they are so blind in their desire from their position of futility that they simply ignore it. Neither of which speaks well of the arguers.

This is another episode in the ongoing series of communications to a budding cult guru as he tries to establish his own cult by convincing gullible Christians that it doesn’t really matter what the Bible does or doesn’t say, the most important thing is for them is to live their lives according to “godly principles.” The initial installment is found here and the second installment continues at the bottom of this comment.

Today, the adventure continues as budding cult leader is warned to stick to the script of godly principles and instructed to recruit a good hatchet-man to handle the opposition in a way that keeps Dave from getting his hands dirty. And remember, this episode is brought to you by a generous grant from the wonderful folks of the Worldwide Ever-present Life Of Victory Everlasting, Never Acknowledging Grace or Helping Marriage Exist Harmoniously Foundation. (The WeLoveNaghmeh Foundation; #welovenaghmeh) Enjoy!

@Dave

Dave! Just when I thought you were getting the hang of becoming a real cult leader with this godly principles thing, you went and tried to argue Scripture… and right out of the chute you completely got it wrong! Toad isn’t the one who claimed polygamy was common in Rome. Dave, cult leaders are not supposed to make basic mistakes like that, they’re supposed to remain aloof, make people feel good and answer direct questions with ambiguous answers.

Then, you went off and started talking about slavery. WHY, DAVE? You said

By your argument, since slavery was common in Roman society, of course it should be OK for Christians to own slaves today.

Of COURSE Toad is going to say it’s OK to own slaves and he already gave his explanation why in this comment in response to Exfernal! Look at all the instruction in Ephesians and 1st Peter to slaves and slave owners, and you’re trying to tell people the New Testament doesn’t support slavery? Are you nuts?

Stick to godly principles, Dave. You went off on wild tangents, put words in the Apostle Paul’s mouth that he never said and made a REALLY stupid reference to the “elders should be the husband of one wife” passage. Dave, this is why I told you to stick to the godly principles thing, because Dave, you suck at exegesis. The exact same phrase, in the Greek, is also translated as “the wife of one man” when describing widows being placed on the widows roster for the church to support. Claiming the correct translation is “the husband of (ONLY) one wife” means the Apostle Paul couldn’t be an elder since he wasn’t married and neither could any man who’s wife died and then married another woman. Claiming the exact same phrase also means “the wife of (ONLY) one husband” means Elizabeth Elliot could not be supported by the church as a widow. That woman was a Christian widow’s widow with THREE husbands! She was widowed twice and if it hadn’t been for Alzheimer’s she probably would have made it three times. Dave, the best explanation of that passage is it’s a slang term that applies to both men and women, the men are not to be ladies men and the women are not to be flirts. It speaks to their character, Dave (like all the other stuff on the list), not their status in marriage.

And then you went and ADMITTED your ignorance of what Scripture says! How could you do that Dave? You’re supposed to be the big guy, the guru, the cult leader with the answers! How could you say this???

How anyone could read the NT Scripture and conclude that Jesus submitted Himself to the religious leaders of His day is beyond me.

Idiot! The Law instituted the judges under the authority of Moses (the Sanhedrin) which was composed of the scribes and Pharisees and their authority to judge comes from the Law! To say that Jesus didn’t submit to them is to say that Jesus didn’t submit to the Law! Listen to me, Dave, and stop trying to argue the stuff you don’t understand. And, whatever you do, stop admitting your ignorance! Just mangle a few verses, make it sound good, call it a godly principle and throw it out there. Make people feel good and they’ll smile while they eat shit and you can sit back and collect their offerings. Dave, look at how the most expensive coffee in the world is collected out of civet-cat shit and then processed. People literally pay unbelievable amounts of money to drink coffee that came out of a pile of shit! All you have to do is convince them to pay you lots of money to eat your shit, and that’s what the godly principles thing is all about!

I really thought you were doing really well, but after your latest performance I’ve concluded you need some help.

You need to get together with this Shammahworm guy because you both suck at exegesis, but the two of you could do really well playing play good-cop bad-cop together. You can be the nice guy that says the things people want to hear and he can be the asshole that tears into them if they disagree with you ’cause he already likes screaming about how people are liars, frauds, deceivers, false teachers and stuff like that. Every cult leader needs a hatchet-man like the worm guy, so you need to talk to him and get him on board. Once you get your cult off the ground, people WILL attack you and you will NEED a good hatchet man. Worm-guy is just the person because you can convince him you’re right with your godly principles and since he doesn’t have a clue he’ll believe you! Besides, just look at his comments. He’s one of those guys that’s deluded himself into believing he’s right about everything and there’s nothing like an asshole true believer to really intimidate women and betas. Better yet, he isn’t married so a couple of really young virgins would really sweeten the offer.

Dave, get serious here. Just stick to the script of godly principles and never try to argue Scripture with people who actually know the Bible. The whole point is you DON’T want people reading the Bible, just concentrating on godly principles. Instead, concentrate on saying the things that will make people feel good and give the people what they want, which is to have their ears tickled. Go read that Cult Leaders Handbook again and pay really close attention to the chapter Bill and Hillery wrote. Remember- any guy who could get blowjobs from an intern while banging her with a cigar in the Oral Office, lie about it on national TV and GET AWAY WITH IT even after the cum-stained dress came to light KNOWS what he’s talking about when it comes to being a cult leader!

I’m not saying you should marry a battle-axe like Hillary, using the worm-guy will work just fine, but Dave, you’ve got to be the nice guy and let somebody else do the attacking! That way you can step in as the peacemaker, throw out some godly principles and everybody will love you. Dave, stop attacking and get busy with the peacemaking and manipulation. Somebody ALWAYS wins in every compromise, so use the worm-guy to foment hate and discontent (while publicly keeping your distance from him- he’s probably rabid) and then you can step in and be the guy with the answers and brings peace. Do it right and you’ll be up to your eyeballs in money and young pussy before you can say “Godly Principles!”

I don’t see a society with diverse definitions of families landing men on the moon much less Mars. About the time liberalism and feminism got off the ground in the US the space program and the scientific c growth ended. The Russians and the Chinese are the ones putting our satillites in orbit

Naghmeh’s actions are appalling, but they are entirely what women do. They will walk away from a victim, treat him with complete contempt and use a trumped-up excuse (hamster rationale) to do so. This is hypergamy in action: the circumstances have made the man unsuitable for her sexual approval.
We need to warn young men not to expect ANY support from the woman in their lives. NONE.
There are scores of men whose girlfriends or wives left them when they took ill, were sacked / retrenched, had deaths in the family, needed support due to working and studying at the same time. Women will also do some sort of strange “spiritual cleanse” – like go to Nepal or an Ashram or some shit involving spending a lot of money to do something esoteric to “move on”. At least Naghmeh should be commended for her thrift.
You may wonder why such statistically significant numbers of men are never mentioned nor are they the subject of 40+ years of social science research. Of course they aren’t: Everyone knows that divorces happen because “she supported him to get his career and family going…now she gets dumped for a younger sexier secretary!!”

Somebody explain why some guy would want more than one wife these days. I guess the question comes from a marriage to a by law sexless rebellious women we have now days. women are a legal, emotional and financial money pit as it is. I can’t imagine some jackass thinking he is set having 4 of them.

You wrote so much, yet you said little. But we can all see through your sophistry. To prove your claims, I need you to point your readers to specific Bible passages where Jesus submitted to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
If you cannot then we can deduce that you pulled the idea from thin air, not from Scripture, and therefore you have no basis for your claims.

Toad isn’t the one who claimed polygamy was common in Rome.

Classic straw man. Can you show me where I said Toad made the claim? I was responding to another poster and all those who could read will have no problems knowing that.

But did you realize how little you addressed in your 1273-word response? You conveniently avoided addressing the specific issues, but went on a rant attacking the person. It only proves to me that you do not have any biblical basis for your erroneous and damnable teachings.

I challenge you to quote specific Bible passages to support every one of your claims, and I promise to address each one, using the Scripture. I am not interested in having baseless arguments that you concocted out of your own unregenerate mind.

And, BTW, why would you call me a cult leader? In what ways have I shown myself to be a cult leader? That I said that the Bible did not list every conceivable sin, and every conceivable act of righteousness, but that it teaches us to live by godly principles, does not make me a cult leader at all. If at this stage you do not understand that, then you cannot be helped.

For instance, when Jesus said “the whole Law and the Prophets can be summarized as loving God and your fellow being”, what do you think that means? Why, that there are two major principles which God wanted us to follow as regards to our relationships to Him and to our fellow beings, which was to love Him with all our hearts, and to love our neighbors like ourselves. The rest are mere details.

Also, when Apostle Paul listed the works of the flesh, he did not bother to list every conceivable fleshly sin a person could commit, but ended the list with “envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like (Galatian 5:21), meaning that the specific names of the sins do not really matter, but that his hearers/readers would understand the principle he was trying to establish. With AT however, since the Apostle did not mention a particular sin in his list, it means such a sin is allowed among Christians. A very damnable heresy that is sure to damn both his and his hearers’ souls.

Artisanal Toad is stuck on the “letters of the Law”, erroneously calling it “exegesis”, and that is a major source of his false teachings; I am telling you “it is the spirit of the Law that matters, not the letter”, because strictly following the letters of the law will damn your soul; but abiding by its spirit will give you life (2 Corinthians 3:4-6). And that spirit of the Law constitutes the GODLY PRINCIPLES within which the NT believer must live. And Artisanal Toad, being a master cultist, and using reverse psychology, is trying to paint me as a cult leader, praying his luck that he will succeed at it.

But no such luck, AT. You have not the life of God in you, because you do not speak according to “this word” (Isaiah 8:20). I perceive that you are being held in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity (Acts 8:23). May God have mercy upon your soul and open your eyes so you can repent of your numerous soul damning errors, lest you be eternally lost.

And by “the Law”, I am not referring to the OT laws, but to the NT, lest AT goes on a tangent again, and leaves the weightier matters to focus on this nonessential. The NT has more than 300 laws and commandments, and those constitute everything the NT believer is expected to conform to. Everything in the OT that is considered useful to us is brought over and incorporated into the NT; everything left out is irrelevant to us today, though may be used to admonish and teach (Romans 15:4). A fact which is beyond the comprehension of the “master exegesis guy”, Artisanal D. Toad (D stands for “Deluded”).

You wrote so much, yet you said nothing. But we can all see through your sophistry. To prove your claims, I need you to point your readers to specific Bible passages where Jesus submitted to the Pharisees and Sadducees.
If you cannot then we can deduce that you pulled the idea from thin air, not from Scripture, and therefore you have no basis for your claims.

Toad isn’t the one who claimed polygamy was common in Rome.

Classic straw man. Can you show me where I said Toad made the claim? I was responding to another poster and all those who could read will have no problems knowing that.

But did you realize how little you addressed in your 1273-word response? You conveniently avoided addressing the specific issues, but went on a rant attacking the person. It only proves to me that you do not have any biblical basis for your erroneous and damnable teachings.

I challenge you to quote specific Bible passages to support every one of your claims, and I promise to address each one, using the Scripture. I am not interested in having baseless arguments that you concocted out of your own unregenerate mind.

And, BTW, why would you call me a cult leader? In what ways have I shown myself to be a cult leader? That I said that the Bible did not list every conceivable sin, and every conceivable act of righteousness, but that it teaches us to live by godly principles, does not make me a cult leader at all. If at this stage you do not understand that, then you cannot be helped.

For instance, when Jesus said “the whole Law and the Prophets can be summarized as loving God and your fellow being”, what do you think that means? Why, that there are two major principles which God wanted us to follow, which was to love Him with all our hearts, and to love our neighbors like ourselves. The rest are mere details.

Also, when Apostle Paul listed the works of the flesh, he did not bother to list every conceivable fleshly sin a person could commit, but ended the list with “envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like (Galatian 5:21), meaning that the specific names of the sins do not really matter, but that his hearers/readers would understand the principle he was trying to establish. With AT however, since the Apostle did not mention a particular sin in his list, it means such a sin is allowed among Christians. A very damnable heresy that is sure to damn both his and his hearers’ souls.

Artisanal Toad is stuck on the “letters of the Law”, erroneously calling it “exegesis”, and that is a major source of his false teachings; I am telling you “it is the spirit of the Law that matters, not the letter”, because strictly following the letters of the law will damn your soul; but abiding by its spirit will give you life (2 Corinthians 3:4-6). And that spirit of the Law constitutes the GODLY PRINCIPLES within which the NT believer must live. And Artisanal Toad, being a master cultist, and using reverse psychology, is trying to paint me as a cult leader, praying his luck that he will succeed at it.
But no such luck, AT. You have not the life of God in you, because you do not peak according to “this word” (Isaiah 8:20). I perceive that you are being held in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity (Acts 8:23). May God have mercy on your soul and open your eyes so you can repent of your numerous soul damning errors, lest you be eternally lost.

And by “the Law”, I am not referring to the OT laws, but to the NT, lest AT goes on a tangent again, and leaves the weightier matters to focus on this nonessential. The NT has more than 300 laws and commandments, and those constitute everything the NT believer is expected to conform to. Everything in the OT that is considered useful to us is brought over and incorporated into the NT; everything left out is irrelevant to us today. A fact which is beyond the comprehension of the “master exegesis guy”, Artisanal D. Toad (D stands for “Deluded”).

>And, BTW, why would you call me a cult leader? In what ways have I shown myself to be a cult leader? That I said that the Bible did not list every conceivable sin, and every conceivable act of righteousness, but that it teaches us to live by godly principles, does not make me a cult leader at all. If at this stage you do not understand that, then you cannot be helped.

Because when you abandon the literal, printed Word of God for “godly principles” like you seem to have, heresy ensues. When someone like that gets into a position of power, that’s how cults get started.

Because when you abandon the literal, printed Word of God for “godly principles” like you seem to have, heresy ensues. When someone like that gets into a position of power, that’s how cults get started.

Nonsense. If anyone has abandoned the word of God, it’s those who create doctrines out of thin air, and jump to baseless conclusions.

Pray, cite specific examples of where I abandoned the literal word of God. More than most of you, I make consistent efforts to align my assertions with relevant passages in Scripture, and do not take liberty with the word, as your pastor, Artisanal Toad and yourself are doing.

What, is this a joke?
I am relaxed. But I will not sit idly by and allow false teachers get away with their damnable heresies, making up their destructive and baseless facts as they go along. These same people would spend far more time reading dead men’s brains rather than the simple, unvarnished word of God. They are more adept at quoting the sayings of some dead rabbis when they lack the most basic understanding of the simple word of God.
People like Artisanal Toad who, in the Old Testament days, would have been burned at the stakes or thrust through with a spear for trying to lead the people of God astray with their lies and false teachings. Yet, they come into this forum, and have the guts to call someone else a cult leader when they themselves are so removed from the most fundamental truths of the faith.

Dave – “The NT has more than 300 laws and commandments, and those constitute everything the NT believer is expected to conform to.”

Holy shit! Has anyone told Christians this? Is there a list somewhere? I’m in trouble.

Guys – just remember the greatest commandments – that is what Jesus preached and considered to be the totality and meaning of the OT law.

O yes, the NT has far more laws and commandments than all these ignorant preachers (aka Artisanal Toad and his minions) would have you believe. I have read the Bible again and again for well over 35 years and I can confidently say that I do understand at least the basic teachings of that book.

For those who would learn, this is a fact: the Bible was not written to be interpreted by anyone. You do not need a professor of religion to explain the Greek or Hebrew or Aramaic origin of the terms being used in its pages. The truth of the Bible is so simple that a kindergartener could read it, understand it, and act on it. It is a book to be read and believed, not a book to be argued and twisted and bludgeoned to death by these degenerate preachers who are actually wolves in sheep’s clothing. For, it is clear that many of the preachers in America are either closeted homosexuals, or fornicators, or greedy money grabbers, who would do anything to justify their disgustingly sinful ways and pass them off as righteousness.

Even Artisanal Toad is said to be on record saying that a married Christian man could go have sex with another woman who is not his wife. This degenerate and delusional man also said lesbianism is not forbidden for the Christian because it was never condemned in Scripture. What a soul damning heretic.

If you must peddle lies and destructive preahings you must look for a less intelligent audience. Here in this place, you will be held to the fire, and be forced to produce scriptural evidence for each one of your assertions. Or you’ll be called out for the fraud that you are.

Dave: I’m not interested in your Stalinesque desire for purging. By the way, the word you are looking for is “heterodox” rather than “heretic”. However you using either word referring to another is problematic as you use them self-referentially rather than in reference to a creed.

Dave: I’m not interested in your Stalinesque desire for purging. By the way, the word you are looking for is “heterodox” rather than “heretic”. However you using either word referring to another is problematic as you use them self-referentially rather than in reference to a creed.

I am not interested in purging anyone either. But I used the term in reference to Scripture. When someone blatantly states that the Scripture does not mean what it clearly says, that person qualifies as a heretic.

According to the dictionary, a heretic is a person believing in or practicing religious heresy; a person holding an opinion at odds with what is generally accepted.

I’m going to respond to AT’s post in more detail later. But the satanic “teaching” quoted below needs it’s own post. Note the all caps I added to emphasize his heresy.

…

People like Artisanal Toad is a “false brethren” bringing in damnable heresies, and Scripture mandates me to contend with him.

So much drama.

I’ve never seen Artisinal Toad command others to live his lifestyle, or imply that monogamy is sinful. He’s just explaining his own interpretation. I don’t think it’s in line with the spirit of the text either, but we should argue charitably, so that the point we make doesn’t get lost in a lot of eristic noise.

@Dave: >And what if I told you I was a Bishop? Who am I to place myself under?

If I were him, I’d say to verify that by either putting on your garb and taking a photo of yourself holding a piece of paper with the the URL of this comment thread and the date written on it, or a picture of your garb with a piece of paper with the URL of this comment thread and the date written on it sitting on top of it (if you feel that getting dressed in your garb for trivial reasons would demean your position).😉

I’ve never seen Artisinal Toad command others to live his lifestyle, or imply that monogamy is sinful.

Really? Maybe you need to look closer. This man had the audacity to say everyone else was wrong, and he, with his false teachings, is right. He would go on a rant, spewing absolute garbage out there, attempting to convert people to his way of thinking.

I don’t think it’s in line with the spirit of the text either, but we should argue charitably,…

Why don’t you tell Artisanal Toad that? After all, he started with the name calling and mockery? Or does he think he could simply act like a deluded man and not be called out for his foolishness?

If I were him, I’d say to verify that by either putting on your garb and taking a photo of yourself holding a piece of paper…..

Obviously you didn’t get my point.
There is no passage in Scripture that says I must be under a Bishop or anyone for that matter before I tell a false teacher they a false teacher. If you had spent more time studying the Word you would have known that all along.

I could hedge and point out that Paul may have been trying to prevent the aristocracy from taking over the churches since the rich had multiple wives this would be a simple screen to prevent the rich from serving as elders. However, you are correct in this at least because I believe the real reason is Paul’s other warnings that it is better still to be celibate. A married man is concerned for the world and how to please his wife rather than the Kingdom of God. Therefore a man with 2, 3, or more wives might be even more concerned with the world and how to please his wives so may not be fit to serve the Church as an elder.

That doesn’t mean a man who declines to serve as an elder is sinning! Nor does it mean that a man who declines to participate in a monogamous marriage is necessarily sinning any more than Abraham, Isaac, Samson, David, or Solomon were sinning when they took multiple wives.

By your logic, we should have Eunuch elders who are celibate- which…since elders are married men with ONE churchian wife this is USUALLY the case these days. How is that working out for everybody?

@Aritisional Todd and @Dave, thanks for the show. You two should think about writing a book together. Between AT’s tortured, albeit specific, interpretations of largely inconsistent bits of Old and New Testament Scripture and Dave’s sex negative moralizing we have a keeper. Actually I think you are both wrong.

@AT’s strict interpretation of who marries and what constitutes marriage coupled with his justification for prostitution is inconsistent. You don’t “marry” the virgin ONS. You paid for it so she is just a prostitute! Isn’t Biblical interpretation fun!

@Dave: How do you reconcile the Song of Songs with your limiting views on sex (let me just guess RC?) and what exactly kind of marriage ceremony do you suppose Isaac and Rebekah had?

As for me, I argue that the divorce example Jesus gave must be understood in light of the entire message. Read the damn passages for the love of our Lord.

He SAID:

–If your hand offends you cut it off

–if your eye offends you pluck it out

–if you divorce a woman and remarry you commit adultery

These are OBVIOUSLY examples of hyperbole- as the notes to the examples of mutilating yourself universally attest. Strangely, there are no notes in the divorce/adultery passage which he probably uttered with the exact same breath.

On a related note: Did the rich man who refused to give all of his things to the poor “sin” by not following Jesus?

I think sometimes we forget that Jesus was the Son of God! He was talking on a deeper, spiritual plane where goods and things don’t matter but only the Kingdom of God matters.

Do you REALLY think HE demands that you pluck out your eye if you look at a pretty woman who is not your wife? Do you REALLY think HE demands that you stay monogamous and loyal to a soul sucking, life destroying, sex denying harpy and that you cannot take another wife?

@Dave: How do you reconcile the Song of Songs with your limiting views on sex (let me just guess RC?) and what exactly kind of marriage ceremony do you suppose Isaac and Rebekah had?

Are you sure it’s me you meant to name in your response? Because, as far as I know, I do not have a limiting view on sex different from what the Bible clearly commands.

1. You are horny? Go get a wife, and do it like rabbits. (1 Corinthians 7:9,5)
2. You don’t want a wife? Be a eunuch. (Matthew 19:12 )

God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16), but He may permit it for extremely few reasons (e.g. abandonment and marital unfaithfulness, 1 Corinthians 7:15, Matthew 5:32).
However, a marriage may not work for various reasons, ending in divorce. In such cases, we have to cast ourselves on the mercy of God, and do what we think is best in the situation, not try to claim that God’s words must bend to our individual situations.

Dave: I’m really not interested in “the first church of Dave”; you’ve made it clear that you, and you alone, determine what is holy. You remind me of the joke: “Many people want to serve the Lord . . . as an advisor.”

Eh? This thread is proof that sola scriptura works. We attacked and defended each other’s claims using Scripture. The participants got practice using Scripture (Ephesians 6:17) and spectators both learned from our example and were reassured that our theology is sound. Even AT was able to follow his logic through to an obviously incorrect statement. Christianity is true; therefore, testing its principles honors God. What I wouldn’t give to have these debates in real life!

Proverbs 18:17 is much more convincing than unsupported appeals to authority. So what if the process is messy? Proverbs 14:4. So what if not everybody agrees with the final consensus? The Great Commission requires presenting the Gospel but not enforcing it.

Admit it, craig, if you were required to obey Cardinal Q on pain of excommunication then you’d start a Protest, too.

I’ve read AT’s articles here for years now. I have disagreed with him more stridently than pretty much anyone here (it’s sorta personal with me, you know). If he had ever done what you claim he’s done, I’d have been first in line to make fun of him for it. If I missed him trying to convert people to the polygamist lifestyle, please post a link.

This man had the audacity to say everyone else was wrong, and he, with his false teachings, is right. He would go on a rant, spewing absolute garbage out there, attempting to convert people to his way of thinking.

The first hint you have that AT’s interpretation is colorful and deceptive is the length of his tortuous explanations as to its veracity. If he had support for his interpretation, that polygamy was in line with the New Testament, he wouldn’t need to pull all manner of fallacious reasons for it, in posts that are pages (and pages, and pages) long.

I’m all for debating the real issues, but I don’t think we need to overtly insult each other. No serious scholar of the New Testament is going to find much support for polygamy in the text. Its advocates here would be better off just admitting that they are doing what they want, or claiming (as my relatives often do) that there have been new revelations from the divine monarch, changing the rules.

Gunner Q says: “The participants got practice using Scripture (Ephesians 6:17) and spectators both learned from our example and were reassured that our theology is sound.”

Whose theology is sound? The participants came into the discussion with mutually-incompatible interpretations, each convinced that his was the correct one. As far as I can tell, each of them left the discussion at the exact same place he started.

JDG, there’s no point in comparing this discussion to CAF, because CAF is just a bunch of hens clucking with no kind of authority to speak definitely about anything. Jesus Christ established a Church of apostles with authority to teach the gospel, and their authority was called out specifically so that the gospel would not dead-end in the talmudic tennis of the scribes. That’s the whole point: the gospel now is the same gospel as it was in AD 33 or else it is a fraud, and the mechanism for keeping it the same is to have someone divinely empowered with the charism to declare a matter closed and those who reject it, out of the fold.

Otherwise you end up with endless innovations of doctrine purporting to finally reveal what Jesus would have said to man if He knew then what we know now, confusing the faithful at best, indulging and scandalizing them at worst. It is Exhibit A for what Pope Benedict charged about modern society: “We are building a dictatorship of relativism that does not recognize anything as definitive and whose ultimate goal consists solely of one’s own ego and desires.”

As to how you and Wormtongue got your own entertainment program funded by #WeLoveNaghmeh, I was simply obeying my instructions:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4-5

@others

Most of you have missed the point entirely.

1. God is God. He created us and He has the right to regulate our lives. He did so with His Law. Regardless of how uncomfortable it makes us, what God chose to say and what God chose not to say was His right as our Creator and we have an obligation to acknowledge Him as such, Honor Him as such and Worship Him as such.

2. With the coming of Christ, there was a change is status for the Christian, in that while they were previously dead in trespasses and sin, they were purchased with the blood of Christ at Calvary. They are now the servants (slaves) of Christ and obligated to obey their Master, who has the right to place specific restrictions upon them that go beyond what the Law requires.

3. As stated in previous comments, an attack on the legitimacy of slavery is an attack on Christianity itself, because if (as Dave has stated) slavery is a horrible thing then it is horrible for us to be slaves of Christ. It is not horrible, Dave, it is a much better form of slavery because the Master said “My burden is light and my yoke is easy.”

4. Many Christians have been taught wrong doctrine all their lives and for reasons of emotion and tradition are unable to comprehend that what God commanded and did not command of us is quite contrary to the wrong doctrines they have been taught. Hilarity ensues when they attempt to justify their positions. One good example is the disagreement with my assertion that Jesus was under the authority of the Pharisees and Scribes *because* He was under the authority of the Law. Observe Deuteronomy 16:18 “You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.” That part about “they shall judge the people” means that because Jesus was born a man of the house of David and the tribe of Judah, He was one of “the people” the judges had the authority to judge and He was under their authority.

5. Another good example of this is Wormtongues’ assertion that Matthew 19:4-5 is an explicit rejection of any form of polygyny. Unfortunately for his analysis, Jesus was speaking to the teachers of the Law, interpreting the Law for them. To say that Jesus was instituting a prohibition of polygyny is to say that Jesus subtracted from the Law (removing the regulation of polygyny) and added to the Law (adding a prohibition on polygyny), both of which are violations of the Law (Deut. 4:2 and 12:32) which means Jesus sinned and was not a perfect sacrifice for sin, a claim that completely invalidates Christianity. Observe how logic using known facts works Wormtongue:

IF Jesus is the Christ, THEN He did not sin by adding to or subtracting from the Law and thus His comments in Matthew 19:4-5 had nothing to do with polygyny.

IF Jesus added and subtracted to the Law in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 by forbidding polygyny THEN He sinned and His death meant nothing because only a perfect (without sin) sacrifice would pay the debt of sin.

IF Jesus was not the Messiah because He sinned THEN Christianity is a lie.

IF Christianity is a lie THEN GOSUB Party at a whorehouse.LOOP GOSUB until money runs out or dick falls off. END LOOP

6. The vast majority of attacks on what I’ve argued are in keeping with the tradition-driven extremely high emotional content surrounding what I’ve said. In responding to me with words like liar, false teacher and deceiver, those individual have transgressed the command of Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James not to judge.

7. I have not, as some have claimed, commanded or otherwise encouraged others to follow me. What I have done is shared the results of my studies and demonstrated that God’s Word isn’t perhaps so rigid as one might think. For this, well, anyone reading this has either seen or written the responses.

8. I have also encouraged anyone who disagrees with my take on things to rebut what I’ve said and in general the responses fit a pattern that refuses to recognize the validity of the Scripture I’ve cited (“that’s out of context!) without explaining why or countering it with specific and on-point passages from Scripture, then making unfounded claims using words they don’t even understand. A good example is from Gunner Q:

Gunner Q quoted me saying:
“the fact that God regulated polygyny (just as He regulated farming) indicates a right to choose polygyny if the individual desires. It is no different from a man choosing to be a farmer.”

Gunner Q responded, saying:And there’s your error. You want to fornicate freely without the bother of following Christ’s teachings so you jump back and forth between NT and OT principles making selective interpretations to create a loophole.

Notice that Gunner Q chose to respond to the comparison of polygyny to farming (which is a valid comparison given the similarities in the way they are treated in the Law and not mentioned in the New Testament), but he avoided responding to the specific Scriptural support for polygyny that I provided in the same comment:

*God does not regulate sin (yet He regulated polygyny with both requirements and prohibitions)
*God does not condone sin (yet He took credit for giving David multiple wives- 2nd Samuel 12:8)
*God does not command sin (yet He commanded the levirate marriage- Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
*God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)

According to Scripture (and none of you have rebutted this) God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny and to say that polygyny is a sin is to say that God regulates, condones, commands and participates in sin. Gunner Q actually makes that claim, in response to my comments on polygyny, that I am expressing a desire to fornicate. There can be no other interpretation of that response than to say that Gunner Q considers polygyny to be institutionalized fornication. Therefore Gunner Q is claiming that the Lord God is a fornicator and I am “pagan scum” but I feel good about it because even according to Gunner Q understanding of the Bible I’m still standing with the Lord God and not with him.

The third general response to my argument is simply to refuse to offer any rebuttal to my at all, claim I’m wrong, attack me and refuse to respond further. In doing so, GunnerQ explains why he won’t be enlightening us on his conviction that God is a fornicator.

I’m done with you, pagan scum.

That’s tragic because I did so very much want to hear someone who implied they are a bishop expound on this fascinating concept of the Lord God Almighty, the fornicator. Gunner Q, you said it so own it and give us an explanation.

@BoxerThe first hint you have that AT’s interpretation is colorful and deceptive is the length of his tortuous explanations as to its veracity. If he had support for his interpretation, that polygamy was in line with the New Testament, he wouldn’t need to pull all manner of fallacious reasons for it, in posts that are pages (and pages, and pages) long.

For the third time in this thread alone:

*God is the same, yesterday (OT), today (NT) and forever (Eternity).
*God does not regulate sin (yet He regulated polygyny. Must I cite chapter and verse?)
*God does not condone sin (yet He gave David multiple wives- 2nd Samuel 12:8)
*God does not command sin (yet He commanded some polygyny- Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
*God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)

Those points are irrefutable, they are not taken out of context (not possible) and they apply to the New Testament believer just as much as they applied to the Old Testament person under the Law because they describe God’s character.

Therefore, to say that polygyny is wrong, a sin or otherwise not a righteous marriage (regardless of personal opinion based on family experiences) is to say that God regulates, condones, commands and participates in something wrong, a sin or unrighteousness. That’s blasphemy.

*God is the same, yesterday (OT), today (NT) and forever (Eternity).
*God does not regulate sin (yet He regulated polygyny. Must I cite chapter and verse?)
*God does not condone sin (yet He gave David multiple wives- 2nd Samuel 12:8)
*God does not command sin (yet He commanded some polygyny- Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
*God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)

Nice try. Of course adulterers were stoned in the OT as well, so maybe we should start stoning people again. Citing God’s eternal existence to prove polygamy is ridiculous. To convince your readers you will have to give an example of a NT Christian who had more than one wife. Or a passage where polygamy was encouraged in the NT. Just one will suffice. (Hint: you can’t).

God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)

Soooooooooo, you are suggesting that God must be limited by the same laws as man, right? Better call God to repentance then.

Look, God is the one who decides what is and what is not sinful, and it is foolish to claim that if God has asked man not to do a thing, then God Himself must not do it. He created the world for His pleasure and He does whatever He wants in the earth (Revelation 4:11; Psalm 115:3; Psalm 135:6; Daniel 4:35 ). Who are you to limit God’s liberty by the rules he has set for you?

“All the peoples of the earth are regarded as nothing. He does as he pleases with the powers of heaven and the peoples of the earth. No one can hold back his hand or say to him: “What have you done?”

“The LORD does whatever pleases him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths.”

God could marry a million wives and He still could forbid you from having more than one, and you do not have the grounds to question Him.

And, seriously, you sure are not trying to imply that the marriage between God and humans can be equated to a marriage which occurs between humans? O my.

As to how you and Wormtongue got your own entertainment program funded by #WeLoveNaghmeh, I was simply obeying my instructions:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly, Or you will also be like him. Answer a fool as his folly deserves, That he not be wise in his own eyes.” Proverbs 26:4-5

So you have suddenly gone quiet. The man that used to write as if he’s being paid per word.
Why not admit that you can’t defend your false doctrines using the plain teachings of Scripture? You must give your torturous explanations to simple Bible passages, and make a molehill into Mount Everest to establish your doctrine of lies. Like the Pharisees you “compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell…” (Matthew 23:15).

… and the mechanism for keeping it the same is to have someone divinely empowered with the charism to declare a matter closed and those who reject it, out of the fold.

There are a few problems with this.

On what do you base your assertion that “someone” is divinely empowered to declare a matter on anything at all?

Why do these “divinely empowered” someones keep contradicting the very words of God himself?

Why do they declare Mary sinless when the Bible says NO ONE was without sin but Christ Himself?

Why do they teach that Mary must intercede for sinners when the Bible is clear that Jesus is our mediator and there is no other?

Why do they teach that only certain believers are saints when God’s word clearly says that all believers are saints?

Why do they teach that the Pope, a mere human, is the head of Christ’s Church (utter blasphemy), when only Christ himself can be the head of His Church (His bride).

There is more, but these will make a good start.

You see, if you choose to follow the teachings of the Catholic Church you must choose between the written words of God and the teachings of humans. Why should anyone choose the words of fallen human beings rather than the written Word of God?

As much better men than I have explained to you, many, many times: Yours is an explanation which ignores the fact that the law was “fulfilled”. (Matthew 5) Yes, polygamy was tolerated and regulated, because human society was making a very long transition out of a matriarchal hellhole, and we humans like to progress gradually. The fact that primitive and illiterate people who already have an established tradition of polygamy should not be forced to frivolously divorce their wives en masse, doesn’t imply that we should adopt polygamy.

I realize you’re going to post another lengthy diatribe as to your own justifications now. You are free to do this, but please don’t waste your time on my account. We would be better off just agreeing to disagree. I am never going to agree with you, bro. We realize this by now, to be sure.

As an aside, In case anyone considers this a lot of mumbo-jumbo, which doesn’t apply to him, no less a personage than Sigmund Freud wrote about this socio-historical transition (see Totem and Taboo, Moses and Monotheism, Civilization and Its Discontents). It’s important for secular people to understand the benefits of monogamous civilization, lest they think they can just do whatever they want as this doesn’t apply to them. The bible may be mythological, but it contains a lot of important truths that people regret wandering away from. We are seeing this now, writ large across our society. I don’t want to encourage people to be monogamous because anything else is sinful. I’m just a dude who has seen polygamy, and can attest that it simply doesn’t work very well regardless of the context.

The last post of nick012000’s didn’t respond to what I wrote concerning doctrine and just quoted AT. So I’ll just go through the scriptures AT twists.

“[Jesus] spoke with the authority of the truth, but he was still under the authority of those who held the position of judges over Israel, sitting in the seat of Moses. We see the same thing throughout the history of Israel, in that prophets were under the authority of the King but still spoke with the authority of God, even to the King (c.f. 2nd Samuel 12- the Prophet Nathan rebukes King David).”

Jesus was NEVER EVER under the authority of the Pharisees, scribes or any of the other Jewish leaders. By Jesus, all things were made and without Him was not anything made that has been made. This includes Moses and EVERYTHING ELSE. He was under the authority of the Father and that meant He was under the authority of the Father’s law. Jesus and the Father are one.

Jesus is greater than Moses. Hebrews 3: 1-6,
“Therefore, holy brothers,[a] you who share in a heavenly calling, consider Jesus, the apostle and high priest of our confession, who was faithful to him who appointed him, just as Moses also was faithful in all God’s[b] house. For Jesus has been counted worthy of more glory than Moses—as much more glory as the builder of a house has more honor than the house itself. (For every house is built by someone, but the builder of all things is God.) Now Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant, to testify to the things that were to be spoken later, but Christ is faithful over God’s house as a son. And we are his house if indeed we hold fast our confidence and our boasting in our hope.[c]”

Jesus not only acts with authority over the Jewish leaders, but refuses to answer to them about His authority at all. Matthew 21: 23-27,
“And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, ‘By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?’ Jesus answered them, ‘I also will ask you one question, and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. The baptism of John, from where did it come? From heaven or from man?’ And they discussed it among themselves, saying, ‘If we say, ‘From heaven,’ he will say to us, ‘Why then did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘From man,’ we are afraid of the crowd, for they all hold that John was a prophet.’ So they answered Jesus, ‘We do not know.’ And he said to them, ‘Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.'”

Jesus teaches with authority and NOT as the scribes. Mark 1:22,
“And they were astonished at his teaching, for he taught them as one who had authority, and not as the scribes.”

There are many more passages which show Jesus was never at any point under the authority of any human at any point in time. Jesus obeying the Law of Moses directly in no way means He was under the authority of the Jewish leaders or anyone else.

Onto AT’s twisting of Romans 4:15 and 5:13. He attempts to use these passages to say that certain extramarital sexual relations are permitted if they aren’t specifically in the Law of Moses. Consider these passages:

Matthew 5: 27-28,
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

And

Galatians 5: 18-24,
“But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy,[d] drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. And those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.”

The Law of Moses doesn’t make any attempt to name all the actions which fall into the above categories and are thus sins. But they are sins nonetheless. For example, having sex with a widow outside of marriage is defiling her and is thus impure. It’s sin when you read Matthew 22:36-40,
“‘Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?’ And he said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all YOUR MIND. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

Extramarital sex with women who are non-virgins or virgins IS SIN. Becoming one flesh with a woman who you aren’t married to IS SIN regardless of whether or not the woman is a virgin. It’s a clear violation of the first and second greatest commandments. That kind of sex certainly qualifies as lust.

And you know what? Jesus is the one who added “your mind” in the above passage! It doesn’t specifically say “your mind” in Deuteronomy 6! He both affirms the OT, clarifies it and gives new commandments all at the same time! But an honest reading of Deuteronomy 6 would lead you to the conclusion that “your mind” is included in it.

All I said regarding Romans 4:15 and 5:13 was that there is sin outside of what’s specifically defined in the law. That doesn’t mean parts of the Torah aren’t relevant to it or don’t overlap with it. It just means there is sin which isn’t specifically defined in it. Lust encompasses many actions like extramarital sex with a widow for example.

“It completely escapes Wormtongue that I was not speaking to the issue of salvation, but rather righteous living and the Law of God.”

But both the passages he twists are discussing salvation. That’s the problem. Romans 4: 13-15,
“For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.”

Nope. Nothing here says the Law of Moses has to specifically state all sins for them to be sins. But as anyone who bothers to read my past posts on here knows, there are certainly passages in the Torah which make any God-fearing person know extramarital sex is sin.

Romans 5: 12-14,
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men[e] because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

Nope. Nothing here says the Law of Moses has to specifically state all sins for them to be sins. I’ll just repeat what I already said.

“In no way does this say or imply that the Law of Moses has to explicitly state all sins for them to be considered sins. It’s not saying that if there’s no specific sin mentioned in the law of Moses that it’s okay to engage in a given activity. It’s saying that Jesus Christ payed for our trespasses in accordance with the law and we now rely on Him for our salvation because salvation is impossible for us under the Law of Moses.”

“They were under the Law- how then were they saved? By faith, looking forward to the coming of the Messiah, just as we look back and have faith. How did they demonstrate their faith? By keeping the Law.”

Every single person in the OT that AT mentioned was saved by Jesus Christ. Not a single one of them was saved by the law as another poster pointed out. It’s why Peter says in 1 Peter 4: 6,
“For this is why the gospel was preached even to those who are dead, that though judged in the flesh the way people are, they might live in the spirit the way God does.”

Jesus is the only way to salvation.

AT also twists John 1:47 and claims Nathanael is righteous when all Jesus said is there was no deceit in him. Lacking one type of sin in no way means a man is righteous.

“Ergo, Samson was clean and holy until his Nazerite vow was violated.”

Samson married a Philistine woman which was a clear violation of the law. Just because he was “seeking an occasion” against them in no way changes that. Samson also touched the carcass of a dead lion and ate honey from it which is a violation of Leviticus 11: 8. That’s without mentioning his sexual immorality with the prostitute. He wasn’t holy or clean at all.

AT again falsely claimed that sex between a man and a virgin automatically meant they were married. This is false. Exodus 22: 16-17,
“If a man seduces a virgin[d] who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall give the bride-price[e] for her and make her his wife. If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the bride-price for virgins.”

This passage makes it clear that sex with a virgin in no way means a man is automatically married to her since her father can refuse to give her to him. Numbers 30 in no way applies to this situation because the virgin has no authority to decide who she marries in the first place.

“You claim the virgin has agency (although you have shown exactly zero proof of that) so we’ll set that aside and look at it from the other direction.”

This is an outright lie. I claim the opposite of this. The girl has no authority to enter into a marriage on her own at all. She has no agency at all and this is exactly why the law of vows(Numbers 30) DOESN’T apply. This shouldn’t be confused with one’s accountability for sinning. Everyone has that.

Deuteronomy 22 states that the girl is stoned for “whoring in her father’s house.” Not for adultery. It’s clear whoring is a sin. It’s also clear “whoring” is referring to more than just receiving money for sex.

“Harlotry is not a death penalty offense until they try to fraudulently claim they’re virgins and get married.”

It doesn’t change the fact harlotry is a sin.

Hence sex with a virgin =/= automatic marriage to her. This same action is sin for non-virgins as I explained.

Now onto divorce. AT already knows what I’m going to write, so I won’t pretend it’s for him. The direct words of Jesus are clear.

Matthew 5: 31-32,
“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

A man has the right to divorce and remarry in cases of sexual immorality. It’s no sin and it’s not a choice whether or not Christians except this. This is both an affirmation of the OT and a brand new teaching in the NT. Now onto AT’s lies.

“Then the Pharisees asked why, if there were no grounds for divorce, that Moses commanded it. Jesus responded again and corrected them, saying Moses only permitted it and then only because of the hardness of their hearts, but from the beginning it was not that way.”

Moses executed adulterers and women who falsely represented their virginity just as God commanded him. Hence, the divorces that he suffered were primarily those which DIDN’T fit the criteria in Deuteronomy 24: 1-4. From the beginning there was no divorce just like there was no death. But unfortunately sin came into the world and with it the consequences for sin. That includes divorce for sexual immorality. But AT knows this.

“Second, after quoting from the Creation story Jesus said there were no grounds for divorce and that’s the way it had been from the beginning, but with Deuteronomy 24:1-3 squarely before Him, Jesus interpreted THE LAW OF MOSES and said a man could only divorce his wife for “porneia.” He was speaking to the Pharisees, interpreting the LAW.”

Lies as usual. Jesus wasn’t interpreting “the Law of Moses.” He was affirming it and re-iterating that yes, there are grounds for divorce in cases of sexual immorality. It was both an affirmation of the OT and NT teaching. Christ’s teaching in Matthew 5 and 19 is as relevant for Christians today as the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes. The same way Christ added “mind” to the greatest commandment earlier. The simple fact He uses porneia means He’s including adultery as grounds for divorce. Porneia includes all manner of sexual sin and is actually used to describe adultery in another part of the Bible(1 Cor 5: 1). And Jesus wasn’t just speaking to Pharisees. He was speaking to all the people including His disciples.

“You claim we are in Christ and under the Law, yet, you are trying to pull the right to divorce out of the Law and apply it to you, while in the same breath you reject the authority of the Law over you. Have you not read Galatians 5:3? “And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law.”

More outright lies. I never said Christians are under the law. What I did say is Christians should “uphold the law” just like Romans 3: 31 commands,
“Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

A PERSON DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNDER THE LAW TO UPHOLD THE LAW.

“Third, while loudly screeching about JESUS and His WORDS, you completely overlook the fact that it’s Jesus speaking in 1st Corinthians 7;10-11, but in this case, Jesus is NO LONGER speaking to Pharisees and He is no longer discussing the Law of Moses.”

More lies again(If you’re new here, AT has had these things told to him many times before this which is why I do this to tell you). Jesus is answering the Pharisees and speaking to other people besides them, such as His apostles. He is both affirming the OT and authoring the NT. The same way He did with the greatest commandment. 1 Corinthians 7;10-11 in no way nullifies what Christ already said. Just because Paul didn’t bother to restate the exception clause in no way means it’s not there. The same reason why all the passages in the NT which mention a Christian’s assurance of salvation in no way mean a pagan can simply say the sinner’s prayer and then go back to his idolatry with the assurance of salvation. That’s a sign of false conversion.

“In Matthew 19, Jesus, the man in His earthly ministry, is speaking to the PHARISEES WHO ARE IN AUTHORITY OVER HIM (c.f. Matthew 23:1-3). In 1st Corinthians 7, Christ the Risen Lord is speaking to His servants in the church, speaking in authority as their Master.” Capslock added for emphasis.

And so it comes full circle. This is naked heresy as has already been pointed out. See the post I made on this specifically or just read the start of this one.

“This is supported by the fact that claiming divorce is permitted to Christians married to each other violates the command in Ephesians 5, to the husband, to love his wife as Christ loves the church.”

This might actually be a genuine mistake on AT’s part. But it’s nonetheless false. Ephesians 5 is exactly why Matthew 5 and Matthew 19 mean what they say. In fact, they’re essential to Ephesians 5. The church is the Body of Christ. Here is the description in 1 Corinthians 12: 12-13,
“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves[d] or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

This doesn’t just mean all Christians in the present day. But all Christians throughout all history. At no point in scripture does this body ever join itself to another. It’s a faithful virgin who is guaranteed to be faithful to Jesus Christ now and forever amen. It doesn’t matter how many people fall away or sin because the body remains a spotless virgin that’s guaranteed to be faithful to God now and forever amen.

Individually, the relationship between God and a Christian is Father and child. This is why Jesus tells the story of the prodigal son and not the prodigal wife. When a person turns to Jesus and repents of his sin, he is forgiven and becomes the adopted brother of Jesus. It’s why Christ says in Matthew 12: 48-50,

“But he replied to the man who told him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.'”

Collectively, Christians comprise the Body of Christ aka the church aka the virgin Bride of Christ. This is a relationship of a husband and wife. It doesn’t matter how many members are cut off and thrown into the fire, the body remains a faithful virgin who’s faithfulness is a prophesied inevitability.

JESUS CHRIST IS NO CUCKOLD. Not now and not ever.

It’s perverse to say a man must stay married to an adulteress or a woman who falsely represented her virginity on the basis of Ephesians 5 because it’s impossible for the church to join itself to anyone other than God. It’s impossible for the church to be an adulteress or to be defiled. Hence Matthew 5 and Matthew 19.

This DOESN’T in anyway mean an adulteress or slut can’t repent and be completely forgiven and loved by God like a virgin. And it doesn’t mean marriages can’t survive adulteries or sluts can’t make good wives(after repentance) or sluts can’t go on to have good marriages. But we can’t act or speak like a cuckolded husband staying with an adulteress is equivalent to Christ loving the church. Because it’s not.

“Question: If a Christian sins and in doing so turns away from Christ, does Christ ever fail to forgive that Christian of his sin, cleanse him from all unrighteousness and restore him to fellowship if he confesses his sin and repents of it?”

Nope, just like the story in the prodigal son. But individually we are God’s children; not His wife.

“Therefore, as a husband who is to love his wife as Christ loves His church, how can the husband divorce his wife and claim he loves her as Christ loves the church?”

Because there is no equivalent between the Body of Christ and a sexually immoral woman. Sexual immorality joins one body to another. No where does the church do this. Even when the Hebrews were in rebellion in the OT, the overall body was faithful and intact. Glory to God for giving grace to some of them and grafting them in.

“At the end of the day, your fanatic insistence on keeping to the Law in order to do what Jesus commanded you not to do simply makes you a hypocrite.”

Another outright lie. All I discussed was the duty of Christians to uphold the law in accordance with Romans 3. You don’t have to be under it to uphold it.

While I was going over this, AT posted another lie regarding scripture.

“*God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)”

Here is the actual passage. Note how the covenant is singular and there’s nothing else that indicates the Lord has two wives. Jeremiah 31:31-32,
“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke, though I was their husband, declares the Lord.”

AT’s lies run far deeper than his false divorce teaching. His far bigger problem is a fundamental denial of who Jesus Christ was and consequently is. He’s a liar, a heretic and a demonic false teacher. It’s all documented.

Gunner Q: Far from proving sola scriptura the debate was over when the response was: “If you wanted to establish any doctrine for the believer, you must do so using the NT text.” That disqualification quickly narrowed into proof-by-epistle-only. I was greatly amused over the expansion of discipline into doctrine. I.e. if you entertain anything other than staunch monogamy you deny Christ the Redeemer. What a dour bunch you are.
.
Further you say: “Admit it . . . if you were required to obey Cardinal Q on pain of excommunication then you’d start a Protest, too.” Please explicate, as a married man, how you’d not be chased from your church if you started keeping time with a young hottie.

>Soooooooooo, you are suggesting that God must be limited by the same laws as man, right? Better call God to repentance then.

Of course He is. God is perfection personified; he cannot sin, because sin is not of his nature.

>Look, God is the one who decides what is and what is not sinful, and it is foolish to claim that if God has asked man not to do a thing, then God Himself must not do it. He created the world for His pleasure and He does whatever He wants in the earth (Revelation 4:11; Psalm 115:3; Psalm 135:6; Daniel 4:35 ). Who are you to limit God’s liberty by the rules he has set for you?

Because God can’t sin. Not because he chose to write the rules on what sin is, but because he defines sin as being other than himself. If he does something, it can’t be sinful, by definition. He’s not some hypocritical Greek god with one standard for himself and one standard for us mere mortals.

You guys bashing AT are kinda funny. Example from Dave:
>(Hint: there is none. The fact that polygamists are excluded from positions of leadership in the Church means that God frowns at the practice).

No, actually, you are reading in your own opinions, and adding them to Scripture. It would be better to stick to what Scripture says, and then treat your “reading between the lines” as mere OPINION.
Opinion is not bad; it can help you try to navigate your life in a God-pleasing way. Problems come when you try to put your opinions equal with the opinions/words of God.
In this case, accept that Scripture does not say why the man with two wives is banned from being an elder, but does say he cannot be an elder. And leave it at that. Anything beyond the above is speculation. And speculation is obviously not a known fact.

Or this example:
>Question for you: Why do you think polygamy is Biblically unacceptable for elders?

Gunner normally and frequently has wise comments, but this particular one is unwise. Unwise, as it invites us to put our focus on our own opinions or speculation. (see above) It would be better to focus on God’s word instead of my own words — Isa 55:7-11, Prov 3:5-7, 1 Cor 1:26, 1 Cor 3:18-20, etc.

Of course, since I agree with greyghost’s position that a guy with multiple wives is nuts, the result of that particular argument is irrelevant to me. Plus, I can’t even find one woman to marry, so the whole multiple thing is kinda moot.

@BPP:
>–If your hand offends you cut it off
>–if your eye offends you pluck it out
>–if you divorce a woman and remarry you commit adultery
>These are OBVIOUSLY examples of hyperbole- as the notes to the examples of mutilating yourself universally attest. Strangely, there are no notes in the divorce/adultery passage which he probably uttered with the exact same breath.

Interesting suggestion. While that is one possible interpretation, the passage in 1 Cor 7 does not appear to allow this type of interpretation on the same idea.

@Dave
>Nice try. Of course adulterers were stoned in the OT as well, so maybe we should start stoning people again.

Ummm… Yeah! Or should I say Duh!
NOT punishing family- and nation-destroying behaviour has worked terrible. Is it really so horrid to contemplate running things according to the societal rules that God gave?

Ummm… Yeah! Or should I say Duh!
NOT punishing family- and nation-destroying behaviour has worked terrible. Is it really so horrid to contemplate running things according to the societal rules that God gave?

Oh, silly, silly Dale, don’t you get it? God’s word and laws are only valuable when they don’t make people uncomfortable or demand anything of them. They’re nice philosophical abstractions with which to bludgeon people of whom you disapprove, but having to live them and obey them yourself? Perish the thought!

You guys bashing AT are kinda funny. Example from Dave:
>(Hint: there is none. The fact that polygamists are excluded from positions of leadership in the Church means that God frowns at the practice).

No, actually, you are reading in your own opinions, and adding them to Scripture. It would be better to stick to what Scripture says, and then treat your “reading between the lines” as mere OPINION.

I think the Scripture is clear: those who seek leadership positions in the Church must not be polygamists. Does that mean God actively encourages the practice? Or He was sending a message along this line that “Sure, you can worship with the people, but I do not consider you a good enough example for other believers to follow by reason of your polygamous lifestyle”?

It must be understood that Paul was addressing men who were already in polygamous relationships, and that there was no indication that he encouraged anyone to become polygamous.

I used to attend a church which believed that if you are in a plural marriage and you become a Christian, you must re-align your relationship with the Word. In other words, for the women, if they were not the first wives they must divorce their husbands; for the men, he must divorce all but his first wife.

Polygamy for the Christian has no basis in the Bible. Biblical marriage for a Christ’s follower is defined as two becoming one. This has been the plan for marriage from the very beginning:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘? Matthew 19:3-5

As defined by Jesus Christ: marriage = 1 man + 1 woman. Anything else is an aberration.
We are not called to follow other people’s bad examples, but the word of God. Even if Apostle Paul were to marry multiple wives, that is not enough justification for any Christian to do so. Paul was not the Savior and we were not baptized in the name of Paul. Even Paul himself said to follow him “even as he follows Christ”. (1 Corinthians 11:1).

The Word of God is clear that polygamy was never God’s original intention for marriage.

Dave: revisit high school biology: a man and a woman joined become one flesh – i.e. a child is born. The Gospel passage you cite is clearly biological succession. There is no reference to polygyny or monogamy.
.
However, being a bishop in your church of one you can interpret as you will—Dave’s will be done.

JDG, all your questions are based on the premise that the sum total of Christianity is contained within the pages of the Bible: that Jesus established a book and not a Church. But the Bible itself explicitly says the opposite; it calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth, and admonishes Christians to hold fast to traditions they have been taught whether by word or epistle. That doesn’t sound like sola scriptura; it sounds like Catholic/Eastern Orthodox reverence for both Holy Scripture *and* Holy Tradition.

On the off-chance that you are genuinely interested:

1. Matthew 16:18, John 16:12-15, etc., etc. There are plenty of passages where Jesus publicly states that the Apostles are given the charism to pronounce and define for the rest of the faithful, and plenty where the Apostles are shown doing so. You’re claiming either (a) that they didn’t really have that authority, thus should be condemned, or else (b) that their successors didn’t really have it, thus Jesus lied when He promised to be with us unto the end of the age.

2. The Pharisees accused Jesus of contradicting the words of the Law. Only He didn’t: He fulfilled and restored the meaning of the Law, correcting faulty rabbinical opinions that had crept in but were “not this way from the beginning”. If the Apostles weren’t led into all truth by the Holy Spirit as promised, then they were wrong to interpret the Gospel as dispensing us from the Law and we should all go find a rabbi with a sharp knife.

3. The passages in the Bible that say no one is without sin don’t make exceptions. Elsewhere Paul makes an exception for Christ. QED, Paul contradicts the Bible! Therefore Paul’s letters are faulty and should have been rejected, right? That is the same kind of reasoning you offer against the Church’s pronouncements: you beg the question by assuming a priori that one source is authoritative and the other is not.

4. Revelation describes a cloud of witnesses interceding for the faithful. I presume you refuse on principle to ask others to pray for you, since that would be mediation?

5. Some sin is unto death. Many who are in heaven are not canonized by the Church as *known* saints, but the Church proclaims them as saints with the feast of All Saints’ Day.

6. Why does anyone acknowledge or respect his male parental unit when he has a heavenly Father? Isn’t that blasphemy too — call no man father, and all that? Obviously, the Pope is not Christ but merely the earthly head of the Church. Catholics believe the Holy Spirit bars him in his role as earthly head from being able to declare error as truth even if he wants to, but there is no guarantee he won’t be a knave or a fool; the Church has been led by both kinds over the centuries.

7. Per John 1, the Word is Jesus Christ; some would argue that claiming the Word of God is a book is blasphemous. Most Christians believes the words put in it by Moses, Paul, etc., were not the transcribed word-for-word dictation of God, as (by contrast) Moslems believe the Koran is the direct words of Allah. The Bible is the work of men who were inspired by God to write what they did without error. Paul says that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth. So if the Bible is the work of fallen men, maintained from error by the Holy Spirit, it is no different to assert the Church as the work of fallen men, maintained from error by the Holy Spirit.

Dave: revisit high school biology: a man and a woman joined become one flesh – i.e. a child is born. The Gospel passage you cite is clearly biological succession. There is no reference to polygyny or monogamy.
.
However, being a bishop in your church of one you can interpret as you will—Dave’s will be done.

SBG, which one is it: are you interested in debating me, or you’re not? Here you are, repeatedly telling me you are not interested in what I was saying, but you kept responding to my posts anyhow?

Ok, to “revisit” high school biology as you suggested, are you trying to suggest that in the passage, Jesus was talking about unmarried people having sex, and making babies, even though He was responding to a question about (get this): *divorce*? Jesus even prefaced His response with the Genesis account of creation, and the first marriage, but that was not enough for you.

And, pushing it a bit further, did you miss the class in high school where it was taught that a man could impregnate more than one woman? Maybe hours apart? So if Christ was talking about two teenagers having sex and making babies, surely He must know that more than two can make babies? A man can be with 2, 3…or 10 women, and get them all pregnant–one after the other? See how absurd your response was?

One of the biggest sources of error that both you and AT have fallen into is to see what does not exist and hear what has not been said. The Bible is painfully clear and simple, if your intention is to READ it and BELIEVE it. But what you re doing here is trying to cajole the plain word of God to say what it never said and to reveal what it has not hidden.
So, for heaven’s sake, can you just read the plain account of the Bible, and BELIEVE it?

Dave: I see you are an educated idiot or maybe not all that educated. Most all rural folk know what happens when a male and female human join. It happens with animals too. The plain meaning of “one flesh” is a child. Of course, as a Gnostic you hate the flesh that God created.
.
Oh, and divorce leaves a woman and children without provision. That’s the plain meaning: support what you’ve begotten and the one with whom you begot.
.
I’m not debating: you’re just plain wrong. And dreadfully dull.

@shammahworm – “Extramarital sex with women who are non-virgins or virgins IS SIN. Becoming one flesh with a woman who you aren’t married to IS SIN regardless of whether or not the woman is a virgin. It’s a clear violation of the first and second greatest commandments.”

I think you meant the subjunctive. It MAY BE a violation of the first and second commandment.

I am not promoting nor denying polygamy (actually, I agree with Boxer. Polygamy is not conducive to civilization). But, I think Martin Luther was a better theologian than anyone here. He couldn’t find anything in the text to specifically forbid polygamy.

How to be a Polygamous Christian:

1. Leave Church
2. Marry a bunch of women in Africa or the Middle East
3. Rejoin Christian Church, at least a major denomination
4. Most major denominations will not make you divorce your wives

@SJB:
You are the wise one. Pray, show us where a baby features in the discourse. I have reproduced a clearer passage for you:

…and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”… Matthew 19:5-7.

Your own interpretation of two flesh becoming one is that a baby is born:Dave: revisit high school biology: a man and a woman joined become one flesh – i.e. a child is born.

But Jesus’ interpretation says nothing of the sort:…THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH ‘? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

If the joining of two flesh equals a baby being born, what would it mean then for man to “separate” this baby that has been born?

Have you seen who got it wrong here, or you need me to spell it out even clearer to you?
Jesus was not merely talking about sex, but about marriage itself. A man and a woman do not need God to join them together in sex. They can do that all by themselves. Every fornicating couple are joining each other together in sex, but not in marriage.
A biblical marriage requires a man, a woman and God Himself being the true invisible officiating Minister (i.e. the one joining them together).

Again, it is very helpful if you read the Bible with an open mind, without bringing any human interpretations into it. You will be amazed how simple and how plain the Bible actually is.

And, BTW, hurling ad hominems does not make you sound more intelligent; it actually has the opposite effect.

“Before the eleventh century there was no such thing as a Christian wedding ceremony in the Latin church, and throughout the Middle Ages there was no single church ritual for solemnizing marriage between Christians.” – Joseph Martos

1. Leave Church
2. Marry a bunch of women in Africa or the Middle East
3. Rejoin Christian Church, at least a major denomination
4. Most major denominations will not make you divorce your wives

In other words, go out of the faith to do what ever it is that you’d like to do (whether to fornicate, steal, kill or to go marry contrary to the general beliefs and practices of Christ’s followers), then come back into the Church, and become a bench warmer, and an example of what other believers should not be.

Of course that will permanently disqualify you from holding any office in the Church, though some of the folks you once brought to the church will rise through the ranks and may even become your future pastors. Nice.

Dave: You are a Gnostic and really do hate the flesh. Review the stories of barrenness and reflect on why the mark of the first covenant was as such. Stop obsessing over the act of copulation and start thinking about the purpose of copulation. The Gospel passage you cite even has the hint to look at Genesis 4: it’s not at all mystical-new-agey-spiritual as you make it out to be.

On the off chance that you’re married, have achieved the act of procreation and were allowed to stick around and help parent the little varmints; you should understand the difference between forbidding something, regulating something and silence on something.

You strike me as a man who probably supports the second amendment to the Constitution, which guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms, and you probably have a few popguns in the house somewhere. Like anything else, children must be trained and if one has weapons in the home they must receive instruction concerning such weapons.

An example of a prohibition is “You shall not tear up clothing such as T-shirts to make bore-cleaning patches. Only rags from the rag-bin are to be used to clean weapons.”

Thus, the child knows that while cleaning the weapon is required, getting cleaning supplies by tearing up clothing is not permitted because it is forbidden behavior.

An example of a regulated behavior is “You Shall Never Point A Weapons At Anyone, Whether The Weapon Is Loaded Or Not, Unless You Intend To Shoot That Person. If It Is Necessary To Shoot Someone, Kill Them, But The Only Justification For Shooting Someone Is If They Are Threatening Your Life Or The Life Of A Family Member. If You Must Shoot, Aim Center Mass And Keep Shooting Until That Person Is Down And No Longer Moving, You Shall Not Allow The Bad Guy To Tell Lies About Why You Had To Kill Him.

The child knows that he/she/it may only point a gun at someone if there is a need to kill them and if that is the case they are to ensure they kill that person. The regulation spells out exactly the conditions under which they may shoot someone, tells them how to shoot them and why. This is what we call REGULATED behavior.

Another example of regulated behavior is “If you clean your weapon in the house, you shall spread old newspapers or a an old towel to catch any spills of bore cleaner and oil. You shall not clean your weapon at the table without the newspapers or an old towel that you might not stain your mother’s tablecloths; for if you do so and you thereby stain your mother’s tablecloth she will smite you with many blows and I shall not hear your voice when you cry out for mercy for you have been warned. But if you clean the weapon on the workbench in the garage you are not required to spread newspapers or an old towel for the work bench has no covering and is already filthy.

The decision of where to clean the weapon is left up to the child, but depending on where they clean the weapon they may have to take precautions. If they fail to follow the regulation there is a penalty.

An example of unregulated behavior is the complete lack of instruction on what the child may shoot when hunting. It doesn’t matter whether they shot a coon or a possum, their mother will cook it after they’ve cleaned it and all is well. Or as well as things can go for anyone who eats those critters, but having given thanks and blessed the food you may eat even such as that.

You have stated you believe there is a prohibition on polygynyists being elders in the church. This is a regulated behavior.

You have stated you believe there is a general prohibition on polygyny, that it is a forbidden behavior not based on God’s specific prohibition but rather on God’s Design.

Your beliefs do not agree with each other because a regulated behavior is a permitted behavior as long as the regulations are obeyed while a prohibited behavior is forbidden no matter how the behavior is accomplished. Thus, the proof the behavior is permitted is the regulation. Dave, if elders are not allowed to have multiple wives, then everyone else is. It’s that simple.

Unlike SJB, I do not find you dreadfully dull. Dreadfully close-minded, but not dull. Rather, I find it fascinating that one so obviously uneducated can hold such diametrically opposing beliefs on the same subject with such naive sophistication. One seldom sees this outside politics, the legal profession or the clergy, so perhaps your claim of being a bishop is correct.

Oh- and Dave, the idea of keeping an open mind is to assume we don’t have the right answer all the time and perhaps the interpretation of Scripture we grew up with isn’t correct. The Lord God Almighty regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in polygyny. Why do you therefore refuse to admit that you might have it wrong with your “one man – one woman” thing? 1st Corinthians 6:15-17 says a man who joins himself to a whore becomes one flesh with her and it didn’t limit that to a single man and Dave, you KNOW that a married man is one flesh with his wife, so the Bible is telling you right there that a man can be one flesh with more than one woman at the same time.

In fact, Exodus 22:16-17 says that girl you seduced in the back seat of your dad’s car when you were 17… when you popped her cherry you married her unless her father refused. Since we both know she didn’t tell her daddy about it (obviously- he would have killed you and you’re still around) he didn’t refuse the marriage and guess what Dave? YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE WIFE!!!

I’m not normally one to suggest this, but I think Dalrock should probably close this thread. Nothing useful is going to be accomplished further. Especially as this seems to have attracted non-regulars who seem pretty terrible at argumentation but throw a lot of insults around.

As a last point, let me state a point I’ve made other places: the Reformation does not happen if the Catholic Church had simply removed the corrupt & perverse from their leadership in the 200+ years leading up to that point.

I think the Scripture is clear: those who seek leadership positions in the Church must not be polygamists. Does that mean God actively encourages the practice? Or He was sending a message along this line that “Sure, you can worship with the people, but I do not consider you a good enough example for other believers to follow by reason of your polygamous lifestyle”?

You are assuming you know the reason why this instruction was given. Yet, we have Boxer on this thread and others who has over and over again discussed how his cousins are living in a peculiar version of hell on earth because they married multiple woman but weren’t up to the task of being cat-herders.

It is just as likely (perhaps more likely) that Paul didn’t want polygynists in leadership because it might encourage men who were not mentally and emotionally equipped to marry multiple women and thus be abused by their wives after they discovered he didn’t have the backbone to deal with multiple wives.

You said we should keep an open mind, so perhaps you should take your own advice on this.

@Wormtongue

You can screech as loud as you want, repeating the same points over and over does not refute anything. Your problem is the same one Dave suffers from, which is the conviction that you are right about what God requires of us and anyone who disagrees with you is a liar, a deceiver and a false teacher.

In the end, the only word to describe this is arrogance. “They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.” Matthew 15:9, Jesus quoting the prophet Isaiah, a quote completely applicable to you.

Still, you and Dave have been quite entertaining and there will be many seminary students of the future who will benefit from this discussion. In fact, you two have done more than a workmanlike job, you especially Wormtongue, you’ve given a spectacular demonstration of what Jesus was talking about in Matthew 15:9. You are so convinced your tradition is correct that you are not only unwilling but indeed unable to listen to God’s Word.

When you claim for yourself the authority to declare something to be sin for everyone with respect to a behavior that God chose not to call sin, you are demonstrating the following.

***You are claiming to know better than God what sin is or is not.

***In doing so, you are by the act of declaring something to be sin that God chose not to declare to be sin, *correcting* God.

***The breath-taking arrogance of a mere man *correcting* God is to claim that God is not perfect, but YOU ARE.

***You are demonstrating a desire to rule over others with authority that was not given to you.

As a last point, let me state a point I’ve made other places: the Reformation does not happen if the Catholic Church had simply removed the corrupt & perverse from their leadership in the 200+ years leading up to that point.

I may not be recalling correctly, but I think this is the first time you’ve ever said something I completely disagree with. This thread demonstrates why simply removing the corrupt and perverse from their leadership would not work. It is the corrupt and perverse who create wrong doctrine and damage, but it is the true believers clinging to their tradition of wrong doctrine that are the worst. The only that can be negated is to excise the tradition. The “tradition” can be viewed as a form of bureaucracy. The leaders come and go but the bureaucracy only gets bigger.

The English Common Law is a good example of this. In the early 800’s, Alfred the Great (the only English King ever given the appellation “The Great”) codified the Law of Moses along with precepts from the New Testament as the Law of England in the Dooms of Alfred. 800 years later, William Penn astounded the courts by asking what the Common Law was. Their reply was that it took a man a lifetime of study to understand the Common Law and thus Penn replied that it was no law at all if it could not be understood by the common man.

In the case of the church, it is a historically provable fact that some of the most egregious practices and doctrines were put in place with no basis in Scripture, but rather a desire to gain power over the nobility and extract money from the people. In fact, the most egregious doctrine of all, the idea that the church tradition is the equal of God’s Word has been demonstrated in this thread repeatedly. It’s a case of “we don’t care what God’s Word says, we know the truth and you don’t. We decided what the Bible is and we decide what it means, even if what we decide doesn’t agree with the text at all.”

The Scriptural example of how to deal with corrupt leadership is found in Numbers 25, in which the children of Israel were playing the harlot with the women of Moab and bowing down to the Baal’s. God commanded Moses to crucify the leaders of the people in front of the entire assembly. Proving the rule that those in authority cannot generally be relied upon to clean house when it comes to those of their own class, Moses disregarded God’s command and told the leaders he was commanded to kill to find everyone of their people who had joined themselves unto Baal-Peor and kill them.

God, of course, was not pleased; and because Moses did not clean house as he was commanded to do, God sent a plague into the camp that killed 24,000 in one day. The plague did not end until Phineas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the high priest picked up a spear and killed Zimri, one of the chief princes of the tribe of Simeon (and thus one of those that Moses should have crucified) after he walked into the camp with Cozbi, a Midianite princess. Legend has it that Phineas killed them both with one thrust of the spear as they were copulating in Zimri’s tent. God then gave Phineas His covenant of peace and created an everlasting priesthood in his name, one of the four priesthoods found in the Bible (along with the Levitical, Aaronic and the priesthood of Melchizedek).

It is clear to me that you are committed to living on the fringe—and using the most tenuous Bible passages as your cover–to your own confusion I might add. You first made up your mind, then you looked for confirmation from Scripture, beating whatever passage into the shape you’d like it to be through your long and arduous interpretations. But if you mean to have divine light, you will have to stop being your own Holy Ghost.

The NT text was still being written for at least 60 years after the death of Christ. Yet, there was not a single example of a polygamous Christian mentioned therein. The only time polygamy was mentioned in passing was to exclude polygamists from positions of leadership in the church.
Shouldn’t that tell you something? That for sixty long years there was not a single case of a named polygamous Christian? Paul sent greetings to probably up to a hundred people in his epistles, sometimes mentioning their households and house churches etc., etc. by name. Not once did he mention a man with two or more wives among the brethren.

The fact is that the early Church was far more evangelistic than us today. They were very busy converting people to Christ from different idolatrous and other similar backgrounds, and some of these people were already in polygamous marriages prior to their conversion into Christianity. Paul, being an Apostle to the Gentiles, had to come up with the best solution to the problem.
Thus he accepted them into fellowship, but excluded them from leadership positions—the same way we accept many people into fellowship these days, but will hesitate to put them in positions of leadership. This had nothing to do with the abilities of the men to deal with multiple wives, because “from the beginning of creation, it was not so”.

You may go along, arguing that God indeed permits and participates in polygamy. But you know deep inside of you that you cannot cite a single example of a named follower of Christ who was polygamous in the Bible (OT examples are irrelevant to us who are under Grace).

@Craig
>(b) that their successors didn’t really have it, thus Jesus lied when He promised to be with us unto the end of the age.

Wow. Matt 28:18-20 talks only about Jesus being with us. Your attempt to add in “and a succession of people with revelation from Jesus, just as the apostle Paul and Peter” is … ummm.. Well “terrible”, “disrespectful to the Word and to your own intelligence”. Isa 66:2 has a good attitude to mimic.

>But the Bible itself explicitly says the opposite; it calls the Church the pillar and ground of truth

Can you give the reference for that? I’d like to read it in context. Would be interesting and possibly instructive.

>and admonishes Christians to hold fast to traditions they have been taught whether by word or epistle.

The Bible says to ignore traditions that are from humans instead of directly based on Christ — Col 2:8, Titus 1:10-16.

>Matthew 16:18, John 16:12-15

Matthew 16: The “rock” on which the church will be built is likely the confession that Peter just gave in the sentence before. Read in context, and be willing to admit to other, possibly correct interpretations.

John 16: That is talking about the Holy Spirit, not some person. Maybe you meant to use a different passage? Because it would be foolish to apply a passage about the Holy Spirit doing something, and claim this gives me the authority to do it, so I am sure you had another passage in mind.

>Therefore Paul’s letters are faulty and should have been rejected, right? That is the same kind of reasoning you offer against the Church’s pronouncements

The Holy Spirit guided the whole of the body of Christ to accept the 66 books of the Bible as Scripture. The Holy Spirit has not guided the whole of the body of Christ to accept mass-murdering organized religion, which has some pretty rotten fruit (Matt 7:15-20).
You attempt to bring religious professionals to the same level as Scripture, and then treat them the same. They are not.

> Isn’t that blasphemy too — call no man father, and all that?
Oy. Matt 23 is talking about titles, as the context of Matt 23:5-12 makes obvious with repeated examples — Rabbi, Teacher, father, instructor, etc.
Calling my biological father “father” is a fact and truth, but only for me. Only my sister and I call him “father” or “dad”. He does not demand that everyone call him that. And it would be stupid for him to do so.
Similarly, Paul in 1 Cor 4:15-16 calls himself their father through the gospel, but it is reasonable to think that, for these people, Paul did exactly what he indicated — he brought them to Christ. (And similar words to Titus in Titus 1:1-4.) Paul did not address himself as “father” toward people he did not bring to Christ — if you think you have an example where he does, please supply.
By contrast, the “priests” in the roman catholic religion do in fact expect all people to address all of them as Father, despite the fact that, in the vast majority of the cases, the so-called Father is neither their biological father nor the one who brought them to Christ, thus causing them to be “born-again”.

>So if the Bible is the work of fallen men, maintained from error by the Holy Spirit, it is no different to assert the Church as the work of fallen men, maintained from error by the Holy Spirit.

Really? The Holy Spirit chose certain men, and had them write only certain things. Anything else they wrote passed into obscurity. So only what the Holy Spirit wanted was preserved.
And you think this is similar to a whole horde of men, who think all their teaching is infallable.
Even for men that were actually chosen by God, not everything they did was correct, as the Scriptures attest. The name “Jonah” ring any bells? If I thought everything that the “men of God” did was correct, I would have big problems when reading the contradictory statements and behaviours from Jonah. Or Peter. Or Paul. Or the Pharisees. Or the chief priests. Are we supposed to be idiots here???

@AT
>for if you do so and you thereby stain your mother’s tablecloth she will smite you with many blows and I shall not hear your voice when you cry out for mercy

I made the following statement multiple times in this thread, citing the appropriate Scripture references as proof.

God does not regulate, condone, command or participate in sin, yet He did so with polygyny.

Your statements on this thread started with a demand that any serious discussion begin in the New Testament. With respect to God regulating, condoning, commanding and participating in polygyny, your response was that if it isn’t mentioned in the New Testament, it isn’t right.

Yet, you have admitted that you believe as a matter of faith that the Apostle Paul regulated polygyny in the New Testament by commanding such men not be elders. I do not agree with that interpretation, but since you hold I will respect that. I pointed out that you claim that while regulating polygyny in the New Testament (a reference to polygyny you said didn’t exist), you also claim that something God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated in is wrong.

In claiming polygyny is somehow a sin, you are making the claim that God is a sinner. Please answer this question Dave:

”By what authority do you claim that something God regulated, condoned, commanded and participated is a sin, wrong or otherwise forbidden to Christians, when you have also claimed that the Apostle Paul regulated polygyny in the New Testament?”

It’s a serious question Dave. Don’t be afraid to answer, but show me an on-point direct condemnation of polygyny for all Christians. I really believe the problem you have with giving a direct answer is revealed in your comment:

So, again, you are on the fringe of Christianity

The problem is you care about what other people think and if it comes to a choice between what the Bible says or what people think of you and say about you, you choose to please people rather than God. Don’t believe that? Here’s the proof:

Dave, what about farming? Farming is a lot like polygymy, because God regulated, condoned and participated in farming, but we’ve got a real problem with farming, Dave. Check this out- a guy sent me a message and it said:

—–
The NT text was still being written for at least 60 years after the death of Christ. Yet, there was not a single example of a Christian FARMER mentioned therein. The only time polygamy was mentioned in passing was to exclude polygamists from positions of leadership in the church, BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF FARMING OR CHRISTIAN FARMERS AT ALL. NONE!

Shouldn’t that tell you something? That for sixty long years there was not a single case of a named Christian FARMER? Paul sent greetings to probably up to a hundred people in his epistles, sometimes mentioning their households and house churches etc., etc. by name. Not once did he mention a man with A FARM among the brethren. NOT ONE TIME!
—–

Dave, I have not heard one peep from you about the SIN of Christians who are farming. Why? We both know it’s because if you tried to say something that stupid everyone would say you were dumber than a sack of hammers because that’s literally the dumbest thing they’d ever heard in their lives.

You argue against polygyny because of the women, Dave, you just don’t realize it. Women hate polygyny because it robs them of their power to withhold sex in monogamous marriage and forces them to compete with the other wives. They hate that because the only way they can compete is to be feminine, sweet, submissive and sexually available. You know, all the stuff the Bible commands them to do. Polygyny means the competition between wives forces them to obey God.

You are so blind to your support of the Feminist Imperative that you can’t even see that you are defending feminism by attacking polygyny. Get to work, Dave. There’s Christians out there farming and they need to be rebuked, so call them out for being the “pagan scum” that you believe them to be. Because if you truly believe the line of BS you’ve been floating about polygyny you have to believe it about farming too.

Go ahead. Go marry many wives.
Better still, go fornicate all around, though you are married, and pretend to have a cover for your sinful lifestyle. You are deceiving no one but yourself.

Just know that you are alone. Not a single named Christian in the whole New Testament to back you up. Not a SINGLE example to follow in the whole of mainstream Christian history.
Not a NT Apostle.
Not a NT Prophet.
Not a NT Pastor.
None. Zero. Zilch.

Yes, you have the revelation that Paul, Peter, James and John never had.
You have seen the truth which was hidden for 2000 years from the Church of Jesus Christ.
Yes, you, and only you have discovered that truth.
Not the truth of how to win more souls to Jesus Christ.
Or to deliver the demon possessed.

Nope. It is a revelation of how to get more women into bed while remaining under the covering of Scriptures.

You know what you are doing? You’re fearing the Lord, and serving your own gods, acting like the Babylonians who were resettled in Israel during the time of king Hoshea the son of Elah.
After the king of Assyria had taken Israel captive, he replaced them with Babylonians who, because of their sinful lifestyle, were being attacked by lions sent by God. So, these people complained to the king, who sent them an Israeli priest, to teach them “how to fear the Lord”.
So these people learned to “fear the Lord of Israel”, but continued to pursue their former ways of life anyhow. So the Scripture gave us that impossible:

They feared the LORD, and served their own gods, after the manner of the nations whom they carried away from thence. 2 Kings 17:33 (read the whole chapter for the story).

That is what you’re doing. You’re pretending to fear the Lord, but you are not ready to give up your sinful lifestyle. You are trying strenuously to find cover for your sins so that you can feel justified in sin. But that must be tough luck.
I am pretty certain that in your most quiet moments, there must still hear that still small voice, warning you of your sinful and indefensible lifestyle. You can try to ignore it all you want, but it’s there. Or, since the Holy Spirit will not always strive with man (Genesis 6:3), you may have grieved the Spirit (Ephesians 4:30), and grown “past feeling”, so you don’t feel anything when you engage in this lifestyle (Ephesians 4:19). That is a very dangerous place to be.

The fact that you keep writing and trying to convince others to join your p*ssy train is because deep down you are not at peace with your own self. You so desperately need more people to join you in your debauchery, and you will stretch the Word of God as thin as possible to provide you cover.

No such luck, Artisanal Toad. You have obviously never submitted yourself to the Lord. If you did once you are now a backslider who would rather create a god after your own likeness, than submit to the God of the Bible. Sure, you want to appear to serve the Lord, but you want to continue to serve your own idols at the same time.
Well, Christ will not accept your half-hearted worship. You either give Him the right of worship or you are none of His.

And, seriously, how does being a polygamist help the cause of Christ?
How does it make a person a better Christian?
How does it increase a Christian’s usefulness in the body of Christ?
Fact is, it does not. It only caters to the flesh and nothing else.

I never knew that the power of p*ssy could be this strong.
Yeah, we know that kingdoms have risen and fallen under its power.
Wars have been waged—won and lost—under the power of the Almighty P*ssy.
But it must be something of a shame for anyone to turn, twist, torture and debase the Scriptures so they could get more vagina.

If you would like to fornicate with more women, you don’t have to torture the Scriptures to let you do it. You sound like an intelligent and well read man. I am pretty certain that you can land lots of women with very little effort. Go ahead. Go eat as many strange flesh as you want. But don’t add insult to injury and claim that the Bible permits or “regulates” you in doing so. It does not.

It condemns your fleshly lusts in no uncertain terms. And you know that.

“I think you meant the subjunctive. It MAY BE a violation of the first and second commandment.”

Can’t believe I forgot about this.

1 Corinthians 7: 8-9,
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

It’s sin. AT said it was biblical to have sex with certain non-virgin women “eligible to marry” without actually marrying them. That’s what I was responding to.

AT also said there was no sin in lesbianism between women who are married to the same man.

Even if we accept some form of biblical polygamy. AT has more perverse lies and heresies.

“In the end, the only word to describe this is arrogance. ‘They worship Me in vain; they teach as doctrine the precepts of men.’ Matthew 15:9, Jesus quoting the prophet Isaiah, a quote completely applicable to you.”

It’s also hilarious that AT would use Matthew 15:9 when his “teachings” absolve a Christian man of so many of the hardships a modern Christian must endure. Who can accept his “teachings?”

-Oh no! I can sleep with widows now! Especially young widows who are still attractive and not used to sleeping alone!
-Oh no! I can automatically “marry” any virgin I manage to seduce unless her dad specifically says no! And if I don’t say anything and she just runs off with other men, she’s an adulteress and it’s her fault!
-Oh no! All I can do is “marry” as many young, beautiful women I want instead of divorcing my unfaithful wife!
-Oh no! I can go do this in as many countries as I want!
-Oh that I’d been alive during the time of Nero! Accepting these things feels worse than burning to death on a cross in his garden!

Such struggle and suffering accepting that.

“They almost definitely won’t address your actual points, though, just like they didn’t the last three or four times you posted something similar.”

Dave, I have not heard one peep from you about the SIN of Christians who are farming. Why? We both know it’s because if you tried to say something that stupid everyone would say you were dumber than a sack of hammers because that’s literally the dumbest thing they’d ever heard in their lives.

Classic straw man argument. Your silliness is without limits when you compare farming with polygamy. It shows the depth of desperation to which you will go to find support for your unsupportable and sinful lifestyle.

Again, Mr. Toad, pick up that Bible, and show us a single example of believers who were polygamous in Scripture, or who had sex with women who were not their wives.

Go ahead. Do it. If you can’t then know for sure, today, that you are sinner and living in sin. You are not a Christian in the least and only deceiving yourself.

What still bothers me is why you don’t go and do what it is you really want to do. Why you must look for scripture to back you up in your sin. It is a free world, Artisanal Toad. You can fornicate till kingdom comes and no one will stone you. You can rack your n-count to three digits without problems, thanks to feminism.

But please leave my God out of your program. Pursue your quest for the flesh with abandon, and be ready to argue your case before the all-seeing eyes of the never-dying God, whenever it is that you meet Him in judgement. After all He knows your thoughts from a million years away.

Go ahead, Artisanal Toad. No one is stopping you.

But as long as you keep peddling your nonsense wherever I am, I will never let you forget that you are “feeding on ashes; that your deluded heart is misleading you; that you cannot save yourself; that you’re holding lies in your right hand (Isaiah 44:20); and that hail will sweep away your refuge of lies” (Isaiah 28:17).

You argue against polygyny because of the women, Dave, you just don’t realize it. Women hate polygyny because it robs them of their power to withhold sex in monogamous marriage and forces them to compete with the other wives.

Nope. I argued against polygamy because the Bible condemns it, going so far as to punish those who practiced it by excluding them from positions of leadership among their brethren.

To any sincere person, when God excludes a person from participating fully in His program because of that person’s lifestyle, it is clear that God does not support that lifestyle.

Just imagine a responsible, godly brother. He is very active in church, doing everything right. Except that he has two wives (he married both before he came to Christ). He has been in the church for 10, 20 or 30 years. Yet, he could not so much as become a deacon. Everyone in the church would know this. His own wives would know their marriages were responsible for the lack of progress for their husband in the church. I can imagine each of those wives telling their sons in secret never to make the same mistake their father made, in marrying more than one wife.

Why? Because he has two wives. Never mind that younger Christians who came into the church after him have since rose to the position of Pastors and Bishops. Even his own son has become an elder in the same church which both of them attend!

Yet, AT would have us believe that God excluded him from position of leadership because….no reason! God is “regulating” him. Yayyy!

No, AT. God excluded him because He wanted to make him a public example to other Christians never to entertain the idea of becoming a polygamist. He wanted him to be a living message to all that come after him that involvement in polygamy will permanently reduce their stature in the church of Jesus Christ.

And there is more to being excluded from Church leadership than meets the eye.
Once excluded from leadership, that person cannot disseminate their ideas to the body of Christ because they cannot teach others in the assembly. That also means they cannot have the platform to justify their polygamous lifestyle. And when an idea is not kept alive, it dies a natural death.

It also means that someone like Artisanal Toad will have to stay silent in the Church, because he will not qualify to become a leader among God’s people by reason of his polygamous lifestyle, nor teach anyone. Thus, even if we were to accept AT into our assembly, we must not provide him the opportunity to disseminate his teachings to others.

See, AT, that whichever way you cut it, you lose. Your ideas will die with you without it infecting other members of the body of Christ.

You argue against polygyny because of the women, Dave, you just don’t realize it. Women hate polygyny because it robs them of their power to withhold sex in monogamous marriage and forces them to compete with the other wives.

Then Dave replies:

Nope. I argued against polygamy because the Bible condemns it, going so far as to punish those who practiced it by excluding them from positions of leadership among their brethren.

He’s generally wrong, regardless of the Bible or any other wisdom. Women don’t compete in a polygamous union, they cooperate with one another and “unionize” against the husband. They have more power, simply in numbers, than in a traditional marriage. From our perspective, polygamy is a step toward matriarchy.

Fans of shows like “Big Love” probably get sweaty thinking about having a harem of women looking like Chloë Sevigny and Jennifer Goodwin. In reality, this is what polygamist women look like:

They have no interest nor motivation to look good for their man because he is their bitch. He pays the bills while they live lives among themselves. St. Paul who forbade Christian priests and elders from being polygamists knew what he was talking about and he made his prohibition with good sense and reason. This is a very primitive and poor lifestyle, and any man who voluntarily goes into it deserves just what he gets.

@nick012000*golf clap* Well done, AT. They almost definitely won’t address your actual points, though, just like they didn’t the last three or four times you posted something similar

With the exception of Boxer, it’s cuckservative churchianity at its finest with a twist of evil.

The true value of this is it illustrates to at “T” the lengths that otherwise sincere Christians will go to elevate their traditions above the Word of God. We see this with Catholicism, we see it here. Students of history who wonder how wars could be fought and incredible atrocities committed in the name of God should look no further than this thread, with a particular focus on Wormtongue.

Those who study cults and wonder how people like Jim Jones and David Koresh could get people to follow them need look no further than this thread, because the personality types are on display for all to see. I don’t think Dave is intelligent enough to realize what he’s doing, he’s just emotionally driven. Wormtongue is a bit more intelligent and just as emotionally driven, but he combines that with a streak of sociopathy that allows him to condemn any who don’t agree with him as liars, deceivers, false teachers, ect.. He wants to inflict pain on those who don’t agree with him.

Boxer is far more intelligent than both of them, but he isn’t a Christian and he argues the issue based on personal experience in the Mormon cult and presents his evidence from the Mormon cult as proof when it doesn’t apply.

Dave and Wormtongue have obviously never studied hermeneutics and are completely oblivious to the implications of their arguments in terms of doctrine, even after having such pointed out to them, as with Wormtongue’s assertions about Matthew 19:4-5 prohibiting polygyny. Dave’s litmus test that something has to be mentioned in the New Testament for it to be permitted to Christians failed in a spectacular fashion when I pointed that farming wasn’t mentioned anywhere in the New Testament. The hilarious part is he can’t recognize that his litmus test is a strawman argument, but when I pointed out that farming isn’t mentioned he called *that* a strawman argument.

As a writer I’m telling you, you simply cannot make this stuff up. In fact, Wormtongue and Dave have both done such an outstanding job that they are now both characters in one of the books I’m working on now. Wormtongue will obviously die screaming curses to the end, but depending on how the storyline works out Dave will probably find another character he can respect that helps him pull his head out of his ass or I may leave him broken and bitter. Haven’t decided yet. But, that’s a novel. They really shine as text-book examples of men who exploit the average Christian’s Biblical ignorance in the book I’m working on about how cults are created and what Christians can do to prevent themselves from being deceived and intimidated by men like Dave and Wormtongue.

I don’t think Dave is intelligent enough to realize what he’s doing, he’s just emotionally driven.

On the contrary, I am intelligent enough to know that I am Scripturally driven.
I have also issued challenge after challenge to you—to show us specific Scriptural examples in support of your outlandish assertions. So far, you have failed to do so.
You are the one who do not know what spirit you are of (Luke 9:55). But I know it cannot be the Spirit of God.

Dave and Wormtongue have obviously never studied hermeneutics and are completely oblivious to the implications of their arguments in terms of doctrine

As it is obvious you have never studied the Bible for the purpose of learning. Rather, you have approached the Bible with your preconceived ideas, and sought some passages to confirm them.
That is not how to study the Bible at all.

>On the contrary, I am intelligent enough to know that I am Scripturally driven.

Then address his fucking points, Dave, rather than talking around them. You might think you’re an unstoppable bastion of righteousness, but all I’m seeing is you getting absolutely demolished in a debate you think you’re winning.

I’m willing to bet he didn’t even notice that I copied what he wrote, changed “polygyny” to “farming” and replied to him with his own argument. I even put my changes in all caps to make it easy for him but I really think he didn’t even notice. Perhaps it’s because he just tunes out anything I say and preaches away.

It’s actually been really eye-opening because I wrote about the top 5 things Christians believe that aren’t true on my blog today and put a poll on it. The results surprised me, or perhaps shouldn’t have surprised me, because it was evident from the answers that churchians believe the biggest problem in the church is something that will cause change in the church, not something that causes sin.

The idea that God cares more about the relationships of people who are connecting their plumbing than how they actually connect their plumbing is apparently something that drives Christians like Dave absolutely bonkers, to the point that he actually claimed God regulates, condones, commands and participates in sin.

Wormtongue is doing the same thing, insisting on an interpretation of Matthew 19:4-5 that (if he were correct) means Jesus violated the Law, sinned and wasn’t a perfect sacrifice for sin. That would mean Christianity is a lie, none of the New Testament means anything and we may as well party at a whorehouse because under the Law that isn’t forbidden. As I said, you just can’t make this stuff up.

“Dave and Wormtongue have obviously never studied hermeneutics and are completely oblivious to the implications of their arguments in terms of doctrine, even after having such pointed out to them, as with Wormtongue’s assertions about Matthew 19:4-5 prohibiting polygyny.”

I pointed out sex outside of marriage is sin for multiple reasons. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such passage,
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

“I challenge you to quote specific Bible passages to support every one of your claims, and I promise to address each one, using the Scripture.”

I responded (just on the issue of polygyny) saying:

*God is the same, yesterday (OT), today (NT) and forever (Eternity).
*God does not regulate sin (yet He regulated polygyny. Must I cite chapter and verse?)
*God does not condone sin (yet He gave David multiple wives- 2nd Samuel 12:8)
*God does not command sin (yet He commanded some polygyny- Deuteronomy 25:5-10)
*God does not participate in sin (yet He said He had two wives- Jeremiah 31:31-32)

Dave, you broke your promise, moved the goalposts and created a strawman. You did not, as you promised, address each of the points of Scripture I cited. In fact you didn’t address any of them. Instead, you said:

“Nice try. … To convince your readers you will have to give an example of a NT Christian who had more than one wife. Or a passage where polygamy was encouraged in the NT. Just one will suffice. (Hint: you can’t).”

Even though you lied and broke your promise, Dave, I still played ball. Obviously you are now claiming that if something is not mentioned in the New Testament then it’s something Christians shouldn’t do. In fact, just to make sure we all understood what you were saying, later in this comment you said:

The NT text was still being written for at least 60 years after the death of Christ. Yet, there was not a single example of a polygamous Christian mentioned therein. The only time polygamy was mentioned in passing was to exclude polygamists from positions of leadership in the church.

Shouldn’t that tell you something? That for sixty long years there was not a single case of a named polygamous Christian? Paul sent greetings to probably up to a hundred people in his epistles, sometimes mentioning their households and house churches etc., etc. by name. Not once did he mention a man with two or more wives among the brethren.

Obviously, according to the church of Dave, if something isn’t in the New Testament, it isn’t allowed for Christians. When I pointed out that farming isn’t mentioned in the New Testament and not one named Christian is identified as a farmer among the brethren, how did you respond, Dave?

Classic straw man argument. Your silliness is without limits when you compare farming with polygamy. It shows the depth of desperation to which you will go to find support for your unsupportable and sinful lifestyle.

Dave, don’t you realize that when YOU decided the litmus test for on polygyny was that it had to be mentioned in the New Testament, that the same litmus test would apply to anything else? Like farming? Gosh, Dave, I guess you didn’t see that coming. This is kind of like playing chess, Dave. If you’re going to make up doctrine as you go, you have to think at least 3 moves in advance.

Dave, you still haven’t kept your promise. God regulated, condoned, commanded and practiced polygyny. I cited the proof, Dave. You have not come up with anything that proves the passages I cited are not true or taken out of context. What you did do was pull a “Church of Christ” and claim it had to specifically be mentioned in the NT for it to apply to Christians. But, that is quite at odds with your previously stated position that:

“The Bible was never written to cover every conceivable specifics in our lives, but to establish principles—godly principles—by which we should live our lives.”

Either your “godly principle” is that for something to be permitted for a Christian it has to be mentioned in the New Testament… or it isn’t. You don’t get to apply it to polygyny and not to farming. In fact, while I completely disagree with your exegesis, you claim that the New Testament regulates polygyny, forbidding men with more than one wife to become elders. That means polygyny (according to you) is PERMITTED to everyone but the elders. How can you call it a sin and judge your brothers in Christ, Dave, calling them fornicators, when by your own exegesis they are not in sin?

Dave, you violated your command not to judge your brothers in Christ that was given to you by Jesus, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle James. Even worse, Dave, you judged the Lord God Almighty, calling Him a fornicator. That’s blasphemy, Dave. Dontcha think you ought to repent of that?

Dave, you still have a chance to redeem yourself and keep your promise. Please explain, (I’ve already asked you to answer this once, Dave) as a Christian, by what authority you judge polygyny to be a sin, when God saw fit to:

Regulate it. That’s where God says “If you’re want to do this it’s your choice, and these are the rules.” Would God have provided rules for something that was a sin? Look at all the rules He gave for the Temple Worship. Are you going to try to claim Temple Worship was a sin, Dave?

Condoned it: “David, I gave you Saul’s wives and I’d have given you more if it wasn’t enough.” Would God have given David multiple wives if polygyny was a sin?

Commanded it: “It doesn’t matter if you already have a wife, if you brother dies without a son to carry on his name, you have to marry his wife, knock her up and keep knocking her up at least until she cranks out a son to carry on your dead brothers name.” Look at the story of Ruth, Dave. Boaz obeyed the command of Deuteronomy 25:5-10 by first going to the man who had the responsibility of marrying Ruth’s Mother-in-Law Naomi.

Participated in it: God said He was “a husband” to both Israel and Judah. Was He really married to them? He gave Israel a certificate of divorce (Jeremiah 3:8) and the only way you can divorce somebody is to be married to them.

Surely there must have been a huge, specific prohibition on polygyny that applied only to Christians in the New Testament, just like the one on having sex with a prostitute in 1st Corinthians 6:15-17 and the one that prohibited married Christians from divorcing each other in 1st Corinthians 7:10-11.

Dave, you’ve gone on and on about what a huge Scripture-driven stud you are. Won’t you please show everyone where that huge blistering *specific* prohibition on polygyny is in the New Testament that *specifically* applies to all Christians? You promised you would, Dave. But don’t be stupid like Wormtongue and make a ridiculous claim like “Matthew 19:4-5 prohibits polygyny!” because as I’ve already demonstrated, if that’s what Jesus meant then He violated Deuteronomy 4:2, sinned, wasn’t a perfect sacrifice and Christianity is a lie. Besides, if that’s what that passage meant (Jesus was quoting from Genesis), then (like Wormtongue) you’re claiming God the Father violated His own Law and sinned by having two wives.

It’s really interesting having two such unrepentant blasphemers claim that I’m the one in error.

You can screech and squawk all you want, but it won’t make what you say correct.

WRT to Jesus being under the authority of the Scribes and Pharisees.Galatians 4:4 “But when the fullness of time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law

Jesus was under the authority of the Law. The Law instituted judges with authority over the people:Deuteronomy 16:18 “You shall appoint for yourself judges and officers in all your towns which the LORD your God is giving you, according to your tribes, and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.”

Wormtongue, the Scribes and Pharisees WERE the judges who were in authority over Jesus during His earthly ministry. Under the Law = Under the authority of the judges. The scribes and Pharisees were the members of the Sanhedrin, the judges, and under the Law they had authority over Jesus. To claim He was not under their authority is to claim He was not under the authority of the Law, and that plainly contradicts Galatians 4:4 alone.

WRT to the issue of divorce, under the Law divorce was permitted, just like using a whore was permitted. In the case of divorce, it was regulated. Jesus clarified the Deut. 24:1-4 meaning of “does not please you” saying that “only for sexual immorality” was divorce legitimate and permitted. However, for New Testament believers, Jesus prohibited divorce between two married believers at 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 and instead of the “except for porneia” the only “exception” for believers is if they are married to an unbeliever who leaves them.

Your claim that the “direct” words of Jesus somehow carry greater weight is ludicrous. Jesus doesn’t have any “direct words” anywhere in Scripture because all of Scripture was written by men. That Jesus spoke directly to Paul at least once is recorded in Scripture (on the road to Damascus) and Paul said he ascended to the third heaven, so while it isn’t recorded that Jesus appeared to Paul face to face to give him the instruction in 1st Cor. 7:10-11, you cannot claim that the instructions of Christ in one spot are somehow of less value than the instruction of Christ in another area. He is either your Master and must be obeyed or He isn’t.

WRT to female – female sexual contact, your claim that “Matthew 19: 4-5 shows why lesbianism IN ANY FORM is sin.” is just as silly as your claim that Matthew 19:4-5 prohibits polygyny. There is no mention, anywhere in the Bible, of female – female sexual contact. Romans 4:15 and 5:13, speaking of the Law, states that while there is sin in the world, where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. There is no Law concerning female – female sexual contact so it is not a sin.

If Jesus truly meant for Matthew 19:4-5 to be a prohibition on what you call “lesbianism” then just as with polygyny, Jesus sinned by adding to the Law (a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2), wasn’t a perfect sacrifice to atone for sin and Christianity is a lie. If Jesus really is the Christ, then it is NOT POSSIBLE that Matthew 19:4-5 is a prohibition on either polygyny or what you call lesbianism.

WRT extra-marital sex. The authority to initiate marriage was given to the man in Genesis 2:24. There is absolutely no prescribed form or ceremony to initiate marriage and what Scripture shows us is that WRT virgins, the only things necessary to initiate marriage is the intent of the man and the consummation of the marriage. This is because, as is demonstrated in Exodus 22:16-17; Numbers 30:3-5 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, the virgin has no agency and her consent to marry is not needed, nor is the permission of her father.

Of the five classes of woman the Bible mentions (the virgin, the married, the widow, the divorced and the non-married non-virgin) only the virgin lacks agency to consent to marry. The widow, the divorced woman and even the prostitute have agency (not being under the authority of their father or a husband) and their consent must be acquired in order to marry them.

Because a virgin has something that once taken cannot be restored (her virginity) and she has no agency, she is in a special class. Think of it as “you break it and you’ve bought it.” For this reason, sex with a virgin is a public statement of intent to marry on the part of the man and taking her virginity is the consummation of their marriage. In the case of the virgin seduced, she agreed to the act. In that case, her father has the right to annul her agreement and demand his daughter be returned (Numbers 30:3-5). However regardless of what the father decides, the act of taking her virginity was the consummation of her marriage and thus it is not “premarital sex” but rather “marital sex.”

That leaves the widow, the divorced woman and the unmarried non-virgin. There is no prohibition anywhere in the Law that forbids a man to have sex with a widow, a divorced woman or an unmarried non-virgin outside the bounds of marriage. There is a specific prohibition on Christians in 1st Corinthians 6 that forbids having sex with a prostitute, but nowhere in Scripture is there any prohibition on a man (either single or married) having sex with a widow, divorced woman or unmarried non-virgin outside the bounds of marriage.

Again, Romans 4:15 and 5:13 are specific. If God didn’t forbid it, it isn’t a sin for everyone. It may be a sin for an individual because of their faith or because of their conscience, but it is not a sin for everyone. I realize that’s difficult to accept, but those are God’s rules, not mine.

The sad part is the vast majority of people (especially you, Wormtongue) who read this won’t see the real issue and recognize it for the biggest problem in the modern church. The Law of Vows says when the father hears of it, he has 24 hours to annul a vow or agreement his daughter has made or it stands. Exodus 22:16-17 is very clear that *lacking* her father’s refusal, the man who took the woman’s virginity is her husband and must pay her father the bride price. Taking her virginity was the consummation of her marriage.

Here’s where it hurts, Wormtongue:

Studies show that 80% of so-called “unmarried” adult Evangelical women are not virgins. But calling them “unmarried” does not agree with Scripture, because Exodus 22:16-17 says lacking a specific refusal (annulment) by her father, a woman is married to the guy that deflowered her. That means every subsequent sexual partner she has is a case of adultery, INCLUDING the one she gets when she puts on a white dress and walks down the aisle to the sound of the wedding march. In other words, with rare exceptions, the only couples in your church who are actually married are the ones that have a wife with an N=1, or in the case of a re-married widow, N=2.

Wormtongue, you claimed that having sex doesn’t make one married. That’s correct if you’re talking about a non-virgin, but according to Exodus 22:16-17 (you might want to do more than just glance at it) taking a woman’s virginity is the act of consummating your marriage to her.
In fact, if your mother didn’t have an N=1 when she conceived you, then in all likelihood she wasn’t really married to the guy who fathered you and you’re a bastard.

If you believe that sex outside of marriage with a widow, legitimately divorced woman or some other non-virgin unmarried non-prostitute is a sin, please point to me a specific prohibition of such. Citing 1st Corinthians 7:8-9 doesn’t work because it doesn’t prohibit the men and non-virgin women from taking a sexual test-drive before the wedding, as it were. I know you really want it to say that, but the text doesn’t agree with you. I’m sorry Wormtongue, but the text just doesn’t say what you want it to say.

“Wormtongue, the Scribes and Pharisees WERE the judges who were in authority over Jesus during His earthly ministry. Under the Law = Under the authority of the judges. The scribes and Pharisees were the members of the Sanhedrin, the judges, and under the Law they had authority over Jesus. To claim He was not under their authority is to claim He was not under the authority of the Law, and that plainly contradicts Galatians 4:4 alone.”

This right here is the fundamental problem with AT and all of his lies. He can’t or won’t understand that through Jesus all things were made – including the Law of Moses. Nor does he see all the times in the NT where Jesus rebukes the Jewish leaders for their own sins based on the correct meaning of the Torah. The Law of Moses existed apart from what any one of the Jewish leaders said it was or what they tried to twist it into or any of their “judgments.” That’s what Jesus was under, not them.

I don’t recall citing Matthew 19:4-5 regarding polygamy. I’m sure AT will have no problem quoting where I did. Even if I did. In no way does it change the fact that AT is a heretic, a liar and a demonic false teacher.

>Classic straw man argument. Your silliness is without limits when you compare farming with polygamy. It shows the depth of desperation to which you will go to find support for your unsupportable and sinful lifestyle.
>Again, Mr. Toad, pick up that Bible, and show us a single example of believers who were polygamous in Scripture, or who had sex with women who were not their wives.

You can’t really be this unintelligent Dave. AT may not be correct, but he used your own example against you.
There is no hint anywhere in Scripture about someone acting as a software developer. Other than a parable, I cannot recall anything in the NT about farming.
By your assertion that the lack of reference in the NT to something proves that it is (likely?) sinful or bad, all manner of things can then be “proven” to be bad.
Just because one of your ideas was foolish does not mean your point about polygamy was wrong however. Try to be intellectually honest and open when debating. If one argument is false, then discard your ideas that were based on it and try again. But stop using foolish reasoning. Otherwise, even when you are correct, you will look foolish due to the stupid arguments you used to arrive at or “prove” your point.

>Nope. I argued against polygamy because the Bible condemns it, going so far as to punish those who practiced it by excluding them from positions of leadership among their brethren.

Wow. So you know that being a woman is a sin, right? Sure. After all, 1 Tim 2 forbids any woman from having a leadership position over men. (Or at least, in church. Some would argue whether the restriction is limited to spiritual areas. I pointed out sex outside of marriage is sin for multiple reasons. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such passage,
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Interpretation a:
Any sex outside marriage is sin. In this case, THIS verse does not say such sex is sin; it just says “it is BETTER to marry”. So in this case, your claim of proof is wrong. Note that there might be other verses that do say this… research and try again.
Interpretation b:
Craving sex, as you refrain from doing it in any manner with anyone, is not best for you — “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. In this case, the verse is not about sex but rather the unmet craving for sex, so your claim of proof is wrong.

Note that I agree with the position that sex outside married is stupid. But, like Dave, your reasoning is weak, suggesting that you find what you want to find, rather than honestly looking to see what the Scriptures do actually teach.

@AT:
>Studies show that 80% of so-called “unmarried” adult Evangelical women are not virgins. But calling them “unmarried” does not agree with Scripture, because Exodus 22:16-17 says lacking a specific refusal (annulment) by her father, a woman is married to the guy that deflowered her. That means every subsequent sexual partner she has is a case of adultery, INCLUDING [her so-called marriage]…

Very disturbing thought. While I am not sure about your conclusions, they are based on a logically consistent application of the available Scriptural information/laws, and therefore possibly correct.
The fact that a non-virgin marrying was to be killed (Deut 22) should be stated at least once every year in church. Might be helpful for women to be reminded that they too are expected to measure up to certain minimum societal standards. Minimum standards of behaviour do not apply only to men.

ARGH! Stupid HTML tags… Part of my last comment got ripped out. Here is (hopefully) the full comment.

@Dave

>Classic straw man argument. Your silliness is without limits when you compare farming with polygamy. It shows the depth of desperation to which you will go to find support for your unsupportable and sinful lifestyle.
>Again, Mr. Toad, pick up that Bible, and show us a single example of believers who were polygamous in Scripture, or who had sex with women who were not their wives.

You can’t really be this unintelligent Dave. AT may not be correct, but he used your own example against you.
There is no hint anywhere in Scripture about someone acting as a software developer. Other than a parable, I cannot recall anything in the NT about farming.
By your assertion that the lack of reference in the NT to something proves that it is (likely?) sinful or bad, all manner of things can then be “proven” to be bad.
Just because one of your ideas was foolish does not mean your point about polygamy was wrong however. Try to be intellectually honest and open when debating. If one argument is false, then discard your ideas that were based on it and try again. But stop using foolish reasoning. Otherwise, even when you are correct, you will look foolish due to the stupid arguments you used to arrive at or “prove” your point.

>Nope. I argued against polygamy because the Bible condemns it, going so far as to punish those who practiced it by excluding them from positions of leadership among their brethren.

Wow. So you know that being a woman is a sin, right? Sure. After all, 1 Tim 2 forbids any woman from having a leadership position over men. (Or at least, in church. Some would argue whether the restriction is limited to spiritual areas. — See that Dave? I am admitting where there may be other interpretations than my own, and I refrain from assuming that my position is the “right” one. I encourage you to learn from my example–Titus 2:6-8.)
So, since “the Bible condemns it, going so far as to punish those who practiced [being a woman] by excluding them from positions of leadership among their brethren” we know that being a woman is a sin.
a) I challenge you to go into the middle of a feminist convention and yell that out. I think it would be hilarious to watch… from a safe distance of course.
b) Can you see the foolishness of your argument, once I apply your same argument to a different case? I even used your same words. Again, I encourage you to have the maturity to see the possibility that your position is correct, while your argument is foolish. You do not (yet) have to give up your position… just your foolish way of arguing.

And I think that Boxer’s experiences make him a great source of wisdom about polygamy. His rejection of polygamy, based on his experiences, are far more valid than your foolish “reasoning”.
Personally, as stated above, I think a man pursuing two wives is nuts. Not attempting to give offense AT; I just cannot see the wisdom in wanting twice the trouble.

@shammahworm:
>I pointed out sex outside of marriage is sin for multiple reasons. 1 Corinthians 7: 8-9 is one such passage,
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Interpretation a:
Any sex outside marriage is sin. In this case, THIS verse does not say such sex is sin; it just says “it is BETTER to marry”. So in this case, your claim of proof is wrong. Note that there might be other verses that do say this… research and try again.
Interpretation b:
Craving sex, as you refrain from doing it in any manner with anyone, is not best for you — “it is better to marry than to burn with passion”. In this case, the verse is not about sex but rather the unmet craving for sex, so your claim of proof is wrong.

Note that I agree with the position that sex outside married is stupid. But, like Dave, your reasoning is weak, suggesting that you find what you want to find, rather than honestly looking to see what the Scriptures do actually teach.

@AT:
>Studies show that 80% of so-called “unmarried” adult Evangelical women are not virgins. But calling them “unmarried” does not agree with Scripture, because Exodus 22:16-17 says lacking a specific refusal (annulment) by her father, a woman is married to the guy that deflowered her. That means every subsequent sexual partner she has is a case of adultery, INCLUDING [her so-called marriage]…

Very disturbing thought. While I am not sure about your conclusions, they are based on a logically consistent application of the available Scriptural information/laws, and therefore possibly correct.
The fact that a non-virgin marrying was to be killed (Deut 22) should be stated at least once every year in church. Might be helpful for women to be reminded that they too are expected to measure up to certain minimum societal standards. Minimum standards of behaviour do not apply only to men.

@Dale
Thanks for the considered comments. I long ago discovered that being an iconoclast was not going to bring me either praise or adulation, but since I’m not seeking those things it doesn’t matter. What I find fascinating is the amount of projection involved with people accusing me of exactly what they are doing.

You may think my exegesis on sex outside of marriage WRT the “used goods market” is stupid, but such a reading of the text serves a noble purpose in highlighting the very real difference between the virgin and the non virgin. It also begs the question of why there are such elaborate wedding ceremonies if marriage to a virgin is so easily accomplished. My answer is QED: it is *because* taking the girl’s virginity is an act of marriage that such a focus was placed on keeping her pure (unmarried) until she was actually to be married, and the elaborate ceremony was to ensure the marriage was public.

Likewise, it explains why the cultural tradition that pre-marital sex is wrong was put in place. Not because it’s a sin, but because it’s the initiation of marriage. As that particular exegetical point fell to the wayside and was no longer taught, tradition took over and pre-marital sex was no longer the consummation of marriage but rather a sin and in fact, it is now generally denied that having sex with a virgin initiates marriage.

The issue of marriage and sexuality is one that I’ve studied for years, the old-fashioned way. I do not look at commentaries or the opinions of others, I study the Word. The latest post on my blog is “The Top 5 Things Christians Believe That Aren’t True” and for even the above average Christian it would seem what I’ve written is complete nonsense and contrary to the Bible. Yet, if one actually studies the issue one discovers there isn’t anything that contradicts my conclusions without resorting to serious eisegesis, which this thread has many examples of.

Brundage’s magnus opus “Sex, Law and Christian Society In The Middle Ages” is required reading in order to understand how things got to be the way they are in the church and it’s a very sordid tale indeed. But other than amateur historians with an interest in the history of the church, who reads a 900+ page volume of meticulously researched history? Pretty much nobody in the Christian community, which is why such great weight is given to the traditions and the total lack of Scriptural support (other than said eisegesis) that support them.

The rot goes further than one might think, however, because to claim that polygyny is a sin is to permit a change to the definitions of adultery, lust, fornication and sexual immorality, wrongly interpreting major points of Scripture. To admit the fact that Leviticus 18:22-23 contains a prohibition on male-male sexuality, male bestiality and female bestiality… and the complete lack of prohibition or condemnation on female-female sexuality stands in stark contrast. The silence is thundering, as it were. In light of Romans 4:15 and 5:13, the complete lack of any mention anywhere in the Law of female-female sexual contact is definitive and when combined with the fact there is no mention anywhere in Scripture of such acts, the Christian with integrity is faced with the disconcerting task of admitting that “lesbianism” is not a sin and that alone turns a major point of doctrine on its head. It also invites a lynch mob, but then you have already observed that.

To acknowledge that the crime of adultery requires a married woman is to acknowledge that the word lust means a desire that cannot legitimately be obtained. Thus, the man in Matthew 5 could only lust with intent and thereby commit adultery in his heart if he were lusting after a married woman. That changes the view of previous verses (pluck out the eye that looks lustfully on a married woman, cut off the hand that would caress the body of a married woman) into one that is far less metaphorical and reveals it to be instruction that can be taken literally by one who has such a problem.

It is the lack of any mention of sex with an ordinary prostitute in the Law that brought me to the prohibition on joining oneself to a whore that applies only to Christians (and thus is not a change to the Law) in 1st Corinthians 6; which pointed to the other major prohibition of something permitted in the Law that applies only to Christians: divorce between two married believers (1st Corinthians 7;10-11). The prevailing doctrine within the church concerning divorce was developed under Henry VIII, who told his theologians to find a loophole to permit divorce. None of them wanted to be the next Thomas More, so they did, and the result can be seen in the screeching of Wormtongue that divorce between two married believers is permitted by “The DIRECT WORDS of Jesus!”

Even my conclusion that it was the curse of Genesis 3:16 that created what we call hypergamy in women is contested, yet to anyone who understands Red Pill wisdom it’s either accept that God did it when He cursed Eve or claim it’s an evolutionary development. I much prefer the text of the Bible inasmuch as it provides a very reasonable explanation that fits the known observations.

However, it was my study of what marriage actually is, where the authority to marry comes from, how marriage is initiated and by what acts a person knows they are married that really put everything into place. In keeping with the trend, this too is a hotly contested area and the conclusions of one who has studied the matter are reviled by those who have not studied and would rather cling to tradition. The conclusions I’ve reached, as you have indicated, are very disturbing; to the point that sometimes I wish I could go back to the naive and ignorant viewpoint of people like Dave that I once possessed. Still, I have been greatly heartened by the fact that across the board, my understanding of the issues of polygyny, divorce in the church, adultery, extra-marital sex, the initiation of marriage, sexual immorality and even prostitution are all inextricably linked and in examining my conclusions for antinomies with the rest of Scripture I find none.

I’ve written 7 books within this subject area, one specifically on Biblical marriage. That one has become somewhat of a joke among friends who have stopped asking when the marriage book will be published and now ask what revision I’m working on now (4th and hopefully last one right now). It doesn’t bother me because I had the good fortune to have parents who were scientists and I was literally raised working in a laboratory in which rule #1 was “Thou shall read the data before writing the report.”

The statement that the odds of evolution producing life out of the “primordial soup” are approximately the same as that of a tornado passing through a junkyard and creating a fully functioning Boeing 747 is, IMO, remarkably similar to how the Bible should be viewed. The Bible is so interlinked and intertwined that a wrong interpretation of Scripture will assuredly result in an antinomy, and any attempt to re-interpret another passage to preserve the first bad interpretation will result in even more antinomies. Like adultery, it’s the gift that keeps on giving.

Dale, if you think my positions are wrong and stupid, I encourage you to study, if for no other reason than to be sure in your own mind that I’m full of shit. Part of the reason I studied so hard was that in the beginning I simply couldn’t believe what I was seeing was correct. I mean, how can all this stuff be right there in plain sight and nobody picks up on it? It wasn’t until I studied the history of the church (Brundage is a personal hero of mine) and later experienced the kind of abuse I’ve received on this thread that I understood. People don’t study this stuff because all their lives people said it’s wrong, so what’s the point in studying something when you already know the answer? Easy. “They also said that artificial sweeteners were safe, WMDs were in Iraq and Anna Nicole married for love.”

Sir, you’re overlooking the middle sentence in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9,
“But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.”

If sex outside of marriage were no sin, there wouldn’t be a need to exercise self-control or to marry when one cannot. Paul only says it’s better to remain single because he has the capacity to exercise “self-control.”

@WormtongueIf sex outside of marriage were no sin, there wouldn’t be a need to exercise self-control or to marry when one cannot. Paul only says it’s better to remain single because he has the capacity to exercise “self-control.”

Being an ordinary prostitute is not a sin, but everyone would probably agree it certainly isn’t the best choice of occupation. The fact that God chose to prohibit cult prostitution and a father forcing his daughter to become a prostitute means God also chose not to prohibit ordinary prostitution. Or… are you claiming God forgot to do it? Overlooked it? Made a mistake?

Sex outside the bonds of marriage is not generally a sin and likewise everyone would probably agree it certainly isn’t the best choice. However, just as with prostitution, sex with a married woman who is not your wife is a sin and the fact that God chose to prohibit that means God also chose not to prohibit *all* sex outside marriage. Again, are you claiming God forgot to take care of that important point and you’re forced to step in and correct God?

And, actually, Paul says it’s better to remain single because those who are married are concerned with their spouse and family, while those who are single are unencumbered by the things of the world and able to serve the Lord without distractions. He further stated that he wished others were like him and able to do so.

Your take on 1st Corinthians 7:8-9 is just another example of eisegesis, you’re reading into the text what you want to get out of it. However, I suspect there is a certain social pathology involved here as well, given your wildly dissimilar responses to people who disagree with you.

It would be interesting if there was a way to hook you up to a circumferential transducer plethysmograph without your conscious knowledge to record your reactions as you read and responded to this blog, especially when you “interact” with me. I suspect you would display a clinically significant response just from seeing my screen-name, with further tumescent rigidity as you responded to my comments, an observation that would be open to several interesting interpretations.

@nick012000
It was a quote from the movie “Shooter.” One of my favorites, although I preferred the book. In the context of the movie it was a really great line.

“The fact that God chose to prohibit cult prostitution and a father forcing his daughter to become a prostitute means God also chose not to prohibit ordinary prostitution. Or… are you claiming God forgot to do it? Overlooked it? Made a mistake?”

Oh this is rich. Time for more OT scripture. Leviticus 19: 29,
“Do not PROFANE your daughter by MAKING her a prostitute, lest the land fall into prostitution and the land BECOME FULL OF DEPRAVITY.”

1) Prostitution profanes a girl/woman
2) God gives this command with the express purpose of keeping the land from falling into prostitution and becoming full of depravity. Prostitution is depravity and depravity is sin.
3) AT just tried to lie with this passage and say prostitution is no sin!
4) Even earlier in this thread, AT said prostitution is now forbidden in another twisting of scripture.

“Your take on 1st Corinthians 7:8-9 is just another example of eisegesis, you’re reading into the text what you want to get out of it.”

1 Corinthians 7:8-9,
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

If sex outside of marriage were no sin, there would be no need for the unmarried to exercise self-control or to marry as there would be other ways for them to alleviate their desires.

“Rather Paul says: if you must expel your seed, sow fertile ground. He’s not the first to say that. Again the focus is on the act of copulation rather than the purpose of copulation.”

Except he doesn’t say that. Rather Paul told them to get married if they can’t exercise self-control instead of just copulating when it was possible to conceive. If what you said were correct, there still wouldn’t be a need to emphasize marriage.

This “explanation” is funny when we consider that the human female sex drive is effected by testosterone instead of estrogen. It’s why women still have sexual desire after menopause.

It has become increasingly clear to me that some of those who claim to know the Bible are almost totally ignorant of its precepts. People like Artisanal Toad, SJB and the like, who are so completely deluded that they make the word of God of none effect through their outlandish and utterly foolish interpretations.

Artisanal Toad argued that God never forbade lesbian sex, therefore Christian women are free to engage in that disgusting and unnatural activity. Well, God never forbade Christians from snorting cocaine either. I guess it’s OK to get high just before leaving for the early morning worship.

He also claimed that the Pharisees and Sadducees were in authority over Jesus Christ, because Jesus lived and died “under the Law”, though it is on record that Jesus never agreed with the religious leaders on anything, and the Pharisees never exercised this so-called authority they presumably had on Jesus. Well, he might as well claim that every citizen of the United States is under the authority of Barack Obama, when the truth is that they are in reality under the authority of the United States and the Constitution. Little did it occur to him that the text says Jesus was created “under the Law”, not under the Pharisees.
As usual, AT has failed to show any instance in Scripture of the Pharisees’ use of their authority over Jesus. It’s all “It is so because I said so”.

Shammahworm has addressed these and other errors as well.

Both Artisanal Toad and SJB have been deceived by “seducing spirits”, which are teaching them “doctrines of demons” that were prophesied would be more prevalent in the last days. Their only recourse is to repent of their sins and seek God’s mercy.

Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits, and doctrines of demons; speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron 1 Timothy 4:1-2

@shammahworm: I can understand why you are confused as I mistyped a word. It is: “Again your focus is on the act of copulation rather than the purpose of copulation.”
.
Paul knows full well – far better than contemporary church goers – the drive to procreate. That drive most often manifests as masturbation in males—you’d be hard pressed to prove that males copulate more frequently than they masturbate. Thus “self-control” refers to using one’s procreative power to actual procreate rather than sowing the wind. This too is lost on contemporary church goers as they prefer self-imposed sterility to their God-given fecundity.
.
You can believe copulation outside of a church marriage is a sin but that verse does not support your belief.

Both Artisanal Toad and SJB have been deceived by “seducing spirits”, which are teaching them “doctrines of demons” that were prophesied would be more prevalent in the last days. Their only recourse is to repent of their sins and seek God’s mercy.

Now here I thought a man of God, proclaiming himself a bishop nonetheless, would have offered himself in a fast in addition to prayer and almsgiving so as to drive away the demons tormenting his brothers in Christ.
.
I must have read the wrong translation; where can I get the “Paul agrees with me” translation?
.
Be at peace Dave. The Lord is near.

“You can believe copulation outside of a church marriage is a sin but that verse does not support your belief.”

Paul would have told those who couldn’t practice self-control to copulate instead of to marry if that were the case. I’m not saying you need a formal church marriage for God to recognize it. But you do need to be married.

1 Corinthians 7:8-9,
“To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

Paul wouldn’t have told the people to marry if sex outside of marriage were no sin. He’d have told them what you claim it says and that’s to copulate instead of masturbate.

Paul wouldn’t have told the people to marry if sex outside of marriage were no sin.

Now you are just being rigidly illogical but I do not blame you as you are in the midst of a birth-control addled generation: marriage is the best environment for providing and caring for children. You know this. Paul knew this. Sin is not the subject here.
.
For the last time: focus on God’s purpose in sexual reproduction rather than the nerve stimulation of the conjugal act.

@AT:
>Dale, if you think my positions are wrong and stupid, I encourage you to study, if for no other reason than to be sure in your own mind that I’m full of shit.

I don’t recall writing that (recently?) about your posts. My post at January 16, 2016 at 12:19 pm was a correction of the prior post, where a stray HTML tag caused some text in the middle to go missing. Perhaps you got confused.
I did write about someone having foolish reasoning, but that was not directed at you.

@shammahworm
>Sir, you’re overlooking the middle sentence in 1 Corinthians 7:8-9,
“But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.”

Valid challenge, although I think you missed the word “should” from the part you think I missed.🙂
It appears you interpret the verse to indicate that the person’s lack of self-control will/must result in sex outside marriage. If this interpretation is correct, then it seems strange that Paul writes that they should marry. Why not say they MUST marry? Paul uses the word must about 5 times in the Titus 1:5-9 passage, so the word indicating mandatory obligation was certainly in his vocabulary.
To say you should avoid sin, rather than saying you cannot tolerate sin, is strange. Granted, we will sin (Gal 5:16-18), but Jesus seemed to give a higher standard than “should” in Matt 5:21-48.

@Dave
I saw you entered a reply, but that you did not have a response to my demonstration that your reasoning shows that “being a woman” is an act of sin. If you are prayerfully considering the relevant passage in 1 Tim 2, then of course I am pleased to wait. I am interested in your response.